Scottish Reconstructionism [Archive] - MysticWicks Online Pagan Community and Spiritual Sanctuary

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

May 28th, 2004, 03:11 PM

Well, I've had several people ask me for recommendations on how to get started with Scottish Reconstructionism, so I thought I'd go ahead and post a string with all the information I keep repeating to them. Plus, that way if there are any questions, I can try and answer them here.

It's been my observation that Celtic religion is very poorly represented in the neo-pagan community. And in fact most CRs do not even consider themselves part of the neo-pagan community, though I've found that to be true of recons of every color no just CRs. Reconstructionists and neo-pagans tend to have very poor relations with each other, and the problems go both ways. Many neo-pagans see recons as being stuffy, too bookish, that we focus too much on research and not enough on following our path, and feel that we have very large chips on our shoulders. Recons on the other hand tend to see neo-pagans in a very poor light. They feel that neo-pagans rely far too much on UPG (unverified personal gnosis), tend to not know what they are talking about, disregard history and tradition too much, and that they borrow wantonly from their traditions without respect or regard for the beliefs, practices or people. In fact most wish to completely disassociate themselves from neo-pagan community at large, though there is a small minority who feel we would be better off trying to share our knowledge and improve relations.

Reconstuctionism is a very research oriented path. It requires spending a lot of time studying history, archaeology, anthropology, contemporary writings, mythology, folklore,and even comparative religion to fill in the many gaps. :reading: It's not a path for someone who isn't willing to put in a lot of time and hard work. Furthermore there are a lot of unscrupulous authors out there looking to capitalize on current interest in the Celts and their culture and religion. After spending some time on this path you'll quickly learn to avoid them, especially if you see mention of pumpkins being used to carve jack-o-lanterns (pumpkins aren't native plants, the lanterns were originally carved out of turnips) or of some ancient potatoe goddess or the use of potatos in rituals or recipes prior to the eighteenth century (the potato wasn't a native plant either). The three most popular authors who spread just this sort of misinformation are Edain McCoy, DJ Conway, and Douglas Monroe.

I feel that the most important thing anyone interested in any Celtic Reconstructionist path can do is learn to speak/read the language of whichever Celts they are interested. I can't stress this enough. There is so much that can be lost in translation, so reading the myths and stories in the original language is something that we should all try to do, though for some it's impossible as the language has been forgotten. I'm still trying to learn the Gàidhlig language myself, fitting it between my school, looking for a job, and being a wife and mother. So while I can answer some questions about it, I'm not an expert. However, I can try to help anyone who is interested.

There are only six Celtic languages currently spoken, or even alive, today. All of the continental languages: Celt-Iberian, Noric, Galatian, Gaulish, and Lepontic are lost, along with the Insular Cumbrian language. It is also possible that the Picts spoke a Celtic language, though it has also been suggested that the Picts spoke a language closer to Basque.

The Insular languages are further divided into two groups; Q-Celtic or Goidelic, and P-Celtic or Brythonic. The key difference that divides the two groups is that in the P-Celtic languages the p sound has replaced the hard c or q sound of the Q-Celtic languages. This is most easily exhibited in the Celtic word for son. In the Q-Celtic Gàidhlig it is mac, whereas in the P-Celtic Cymraeg it is map.

The Q-Celtic languages are Gaelige (Irish Gaelic), Gàidhlig (Scottish Gaelic) and Gaelg Vanninagh (Manx Gaelic). Gaelige and Gàidhlig have for many years enjoyed government support to keep them alive, Gaelige moreso than Gàidhlig. The last native speaker of Gaelg Vanninagh died in 1974, but since that time the language has experienced a revival amongst the population of the Isle of Mann, and many now speak it as a second language.

The P-Celtic languages are Cymraeg (Welsh), Brezhoneg (Breton), and Kernowek (Cornish). Much like Gaelg Vanninagh, Kernowek has completely died out as a native tongue but is currently being resurrected. The last monoglot speaker of Kernowek died in 1676. Brezhoneg is on the verge of completely dieing out as a language itself, though more recently there have been attempts to prevent this from happening.

That was probably more information than you needed or wanted to know about Celtic languages. But, I figure what the heck, it might come in useful to someone, and if I know it I don't see why I can't share that information.

Since this post is getting a bit long, I'll split it up and put the rest of the information I want to include in subsequent postings.

Rockprincess

May 28th, 2004, 03:19 PM

Morag, I'm going to be reading and following with interest, although I am not really a celtic reconstructionist myself, but rather someone of mixed celtic decent (Half Scottish half Irish) with an interest in cultural traditions who follows her own spiritual path. :heartthro What a mouthful :lol:

Thank you for taking the time to share your research with us :clapping:

mothwench

May 28th, 2004, 03:41 PM

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

May 28th, 2004, 05:06 PM

I've decided to include next a list of recommended reading, both on and offline. This first list is my online sources. I actually have more, but these are the ones that I thought would do the most good.

Websites:

Language Resources -

TAIC (http://www.taic.btinternet.co.uk/) ~ Gàidhlig Lessons in PDF format with sound files
Gaelige and Gàidhlig Language Lessons (http://www.contemporarypoetry.com/brain/lang/index.htm)
Omniglot guide writing systems in Gàidhlig (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/gaelic.htm)
Online Language search engine for Gaelige, Gàidhlig, and Gaelg Vanninagh (http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/search.html)
Gàidhlig Radio Online, provided by the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/alba/)

Archaeology, Culture, and History Resources -

History Scotland (http://www.historyscotland.com)
West of Scotland Archaeology (http://www.wosas.org.uk/)
Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports (http://www.sair.org.uk/)
The Coligny Calendar Page (http://technovate.org/web/coligny.htm)
Sequanii Calendar (http://www.angelfire.com/art2/sequani/index.html) ~ Sequanii Calendar is another name for the Coligny Calendar
Celtic Connections (http://www.georgetown.edu/labyrinth/subjects/british_isles/celtic/celtic.html)
Gallica ~ World of the Celts (http://www.gallica.co.uk/celts/contents.htm)
Celtic Art and Culture (http://www.unc.edu/courses/pre2000fall/art111/celtic/)
Scotland the Brave (http://www.webmesh.co.uk/scotland.htm)
Celtic Warriors (http://kernunnos.com/culture/warriors/index.html)
Pictish Stones Database (http://www.archaeoptics.co.uk/products/ecms)

Mythology and Folklore -

Scottish Faeries (http://www.scottish-gatherings.50megs.com/page157.html)
Changeling Legends from the British Isles (http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/britchange.html)
Scottish Folklore (http://www.fife.50megs.com/scots-folklore.htm)
North East Folklore Archive (http://www.nefa.net/archive/index.htm)
Celtic Mythology (http://www.timelessmyths.com/celtic/danufamily.html)
Animal Symbolism in Celtic Mythology (http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Elars/rel375.html)
The Celtic Gods (http://user.sezampro.yu/~babbage/Celtic.html)

General Resources -

Electric Scotland (http://www.electricscotland.com/)
Rampant Scotland (http://www.rampantscotland.com/)
Dalriada (http://www.dalriada.co.uk/)
Celtic Heart (http://celt.net/Celtic/menu.html)
Leabharlann (http://www.leabharlann.org/) ~ Formerly Clannada na Gadelica
Gathering of the Clans (http://www.tartans.com/)
Lyra Celtica (http://www.sundown.pair.com/Sharp/Lyra%20Celtica/celtica_contents.htm)
Orkneyjar (http://www.orkneyjar.com/index.html)
Sacred Texts (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/index.htm)
Mysterious Britain (http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/scot_dir.html)
Inis Glas Thoir (http://www.thunderpaw.com/neocelt/)
The Summerlands Public Library (http://www.summerlands.com/crossroads/publibra.html)

E-Books -

Carmina Gadelica (http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/gaidhlig/corpus/Carmina/)
Pagan Carmina Gadelica (http://www.celticprayers.cjb.net/)
Behold the Hebrides (http://www.electricscotland.com/books/hebridesndx.htm)
The Fairy-Faith in Celtic Countries (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/ffcc/)

Organization/Tribe and Individual Websites -

Clann na Fhaoil Choin (http://www.fhaoil-choin.org/)
Clann Coille na Gealaiche (http://users.indigo.net.au/darke/treubh/)
House Shadow Drake (http://www.shadowdrake.com/celtictrads.html)
Tuath na Caolas Púgeid (http://www.geocities.com/pnw_tuath/)
An Comhaontas Thuatha na nGael (http://acgt.ciarraide.org/)
Nemeton (http://technovate.org/web/nemeton/)
New Tara (http://www.newtara.org/default.asp)
Temple of Danann (http://www.danann.org/)
Tuath - Gaelic Traditionalist Website (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuath/)
Brendan Cathbad Myers (http://www.wildideas.net/cathbad/)
The Preserving Shrine (http://www.seanet.com/~inisglas/)

Astrology and Divination -

Frith - A Scottish Augery (http://home.flash.net/~bellbook/faolcu/frith.html)
Reul-Eòlas – Astronomy (http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~sm042430/coreultan.htm)
Druidical Astrology Primer (http://cura.free.fr/xx/19boutet.html)
Celtic Astrology - A Modern Hoax (http://cura.free.fr/xx/17bouten.html)
Druuidica Prinnion (http://cura.free.fr/xv/14boutet.html)
The Fabrication of Celtic Astrology (http://cura.free.fr/xv/13ellis2.html)
Celtic Astrology - A Historical Argument (http://cura.free.fr/xv/11ellis1.html)
Traditional History of the Ogham (http://members.tripod.com/Taliere/ogham.htm)
The Ogham Stone (http://ogham.lyberty.com/)
Origins of Writing - Ogham (http://www.usu.edu/anthro/origins_of_writing/ogham/)

gyroWang

May 28th, 2004, 05:19 PM

Being scottish i'll be keeping an eye on this thread..when my connection works :)

Seren_

May 28th, 2004, 06:53 PM

Is a specifically Scottish reconstruction possible, I wonder? By this I assume a Pagan/pre-Christian sense. The term "Scottish" is a very politically sensitive word in these modern times, and not something that meant anything in pre-history...

Linguistically, what is now considered to be Scotland was subject to at least two different languages during pagan times - the Brythonic language (that was the precursor of modern Welsh, for example), and Pictish - which may not have been Celtic at all (possibly Scandinavian, possibly Basque, possibly pre-Celtic...). This suggests the possibility of at least two different cultures operating in one area, and with that, there is the suggestion of two distinct beliefs and practices, perhaps. And the Romans had some impact on the culture as well, despite never being wholly successful in conquering it. Then there's the Scandinavians, Normans, Irish, English etc.

Language issues aside (although very relevant, I think), there is very little historical evidence as to what the people who inhabited what is now defined as Scotland believed in, in a religious sense - the main problem being that it wasn't written down at the time. Archaeologically speaking, somewhere like Argyll (west Scotland, mainly Brythonic) has a much different suggestion of ritual practice than say the Orkneys, or Shetlands, or most of the East or North coast.

In a Recon sense, the main problem (to me) seems to be that there is still very little definition in what "Celtic" is. This leads to a lot of confusion in itself between those who research, and those who don't. By its nature, reconstructionism implies an attempt to reconstruct a particular culture. Yet many recons seem to ignore the fact that "Celtic" is an umbrella term like "Pagan", and so mix and match anything that goes between the cultures, ignoring the fact the Welsh, Irish and Gauls (for example) were all really very distinctive when you look at their archaeology, history, language and culture. What the Welsh may have believed does not necessarily mean it's applicable to the Scots or Irish etc, yet it may be applied wholesale to fill in the gaps for some recons, say - like the Coligny Calendar. One modern book that springs to mind is the Apple Branch which seems to advocate a pan-Celtic reconstruction "until you've read enough to be an expert". Or then there's Pecti-Wica...

What intrigues me, in the concept of reconstruciton, is how one deals with the gaps of knowledge that are inevitable, especiialy in a Scottish sense, and how one deals with new evidence that may have a potentially huge impact on your beliefs. This is something that I, myself, have flirted with on and off, so I hope I don't sound totally offensive in my questions here...

celticfire

May 28th, 2004, 09:25 PM

oh morag...this is a wonderful wealth of information and may you be blessed for sharing it. my father's family is scottish...and i have always felt a strong kinship with that part of my heritage. i hail from the macdonalds and mackays and my husband is a russell (coming from the cummings descent). *sigh* i feel a twinge just thinking on it...of a land i've never been physically...my heart aches to touch, breathe and hear the sights and sounds. i'm so in the wrong time and place...LOL

sorry to ramble...just wanted to say thank you for sharing all of this knowledge. i feel blessed.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

May 28th, 2004, 10:00 PM

Is a specifically Scottish reconstruction possible, I wonder? By this I assume a Pagan/pre-Christian sense. The term "Scottish" is a very politically sensitive word in these modern times, and not something that meant anything in pre-history...

Yes. Specific practices are possible as like you said, practices in the Orkney's would be different than those of the Higlands or the Western Isles/Hebrides. However, what makes the Celtic tribes Celtic is a shared culture and related languages. So while not identical there are a good many similarities, such as a shared belief in selkies all along the eastern and western coasts of Scotland as well as into Ireland. I personally focus my practices specifically on the practices common to the Outer Hebrides.

You're also correct when you say the name Scotland didn't mean anything in pre-history, however it is a term that we use so that others know of what we're speaking. Although, the Romans called the entire area Caledonia or Alba, so there is some frame of reference for lumping all the people of the region now known as Scotland together.

Linguistically, what is now considered to be Scotland was subject to at least two different languages during pagan times - the Brythonic language (that was the precursor of modern Welsh, for example), and Pictish - which may not have been Celtic at all (possibly Scandinavian, possibly Basque, possibly pre-Celtic...). This suggests the possibility of at least two different cultures operating in one area, and with that, there is the suggestion of two distinct beliefs and practices, perhaps. And the Romans had some impact on the culture as well, despite never being wholly successful in conquering it. Then there's the Scandinavians, Normans, Irish, English etc.

No, they did not speak a Brythonic language, which is P-Celtic, they spoke a Goidelic language, Q-Celtic. Scholars and linguists are quite clear on that point. The people we refer to as "Scots" are generally accepted to be the descendents of the Dal Riadan kingdom, which crossed from northeastern Ireland. Their language is descended from the original Gaelige that the Dal Riadan's spoke, eventually becoming Gàidhlig or Scottish Gaelic. The same thing happened on the Isle of Mann, though their language is more distant from it's original form, because unfortunately much of the spelling was Anglicized after it's resurrection.

When talking about the Pictish peoples, recons are very careful to differentiate them from the Scots, as they were quite different from each other. The Pictish language might possibly be Brythonic, but we're not sure of that. Like both you and I said, it may not even by a Indo-European language at all; unfortunately not enough of it remains to make that determination. The only other Brythonic language that I know of possibly being spoken anywhere in the vicinity Scotland is "Northern Welsh," or more properly Cumbrian, which as I stated is dead. Then again I don't know anyone who would consider Cumbria to be part of Scotland. Therefore it's fairly safe to say their language was Goidelic, not Brythonic.

From the Germanic language groups that were present in the area after the invasions of the Anglo-Saxon and other Germanic tribes, is descended another language, Scots. Scots is frequently thought of as merely a dialect of English, however it is not. It is in fact a seperate language, and there have been recent efforts to resurrect and protect it, though it has not had nearly as much support as Gàidhlig. Here are a few links about the Scots language specifically:

Scots Online (http://www.scots-online.org/)
The Scots Leid Associe (The Scots Language Association) (http://www.lallans.co.uk/)
Scots Language Resource Centre (http://scotsyett.com/)
Dictionar o the Scots Leid (Dictionary of the Scots Language (http://www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/)

Language issues aside (although very relevant, I think), there is very little historical evidence as to what the people who inhabited what is now defined as Scotland believed in, in a religious sense - the main problem being that it wasn't written down at the time. Archaeologically speaking, somewhere like Argyll (west Scotland, mainly Brythonic) has a much different suggestion of ritual practice than say the Orkneys, or Shetlands, or most of the East or North coast.

No it wasn't written down at the time, and while we don't have a lot , we do have enough to try and make a go of it. We have contemporary writings from such people as Ceasar, Tacitus, Pliny, etc. to work with. We have archaeological studies which do tell quite a bit about their culture. We have what was later written down and carefully preserved by Christian monks. Saint Columcille for example felt this was very important. A lot of the folk beliefs were preserved in and mingled with the beliefs of the early Christian churches there. For example, if you're ever read the Carmina Gadelica you can easily see the pagan roots of the hymns and incantations compiled therein. Not to mention that the people continued to practice much of their folk beliefs, such as hanging iron horseshoes over the doorways for protection against faeries. Some of these folk traditions and even rituals continued to be practiced all the way up into the late 19th century. And yes comparative religion does come into play as well. While it may not be exactly what they practiced, it is probably quite similar, especially if we use other Celtic religions to fill in the gaps.

In a Recon sense, the main problem (to me) seems to be that there is still very little definition in what "Celtic" is. This leads to a lot of confusion in itself between those who research, and those who don't. By its nature, reconstructionism implies an attempt to reconstruct a particular culture. Yet many recons seem to ignore the fact that "Celtic" is an umbrella term like "Pagan", and so mix and match anything that goes between the cultures, ignoring the fact the Welsh, Irish and Gauls (for example) were all really very distinctive when you look at their archaeology, history, language and culture. What the Welsh may have believed does not necessarily mean it's applicable to the Scots or Irish etc, yet it may be applied wholesale to fill in the gaps for some recons, say - like the Coligny Calendar. One modern book that springs to mind is the Apple Branch which seems to advocate a pan-Celtic reconstruction "until you've read enough to be an expert". Or then there's Pecti-Wica...

I will have to disagree with your statement here in nearly it's entirety. I think you are mixing up CRs with the general neo-pagan. I have never encountered even one recon who treat the Celtic tribes as a singular entity. While this is common in the neo-pagan community at lage, every recon I've talked with has been very clear in defining which people they are talking about, such as the Welsh, Irish, and Gauls to use your example. CRs are very much aware that Celtic is an umbrella term, and would be quick to disabuse anyone who would call themselves a CR of the notion that it is anything but.

Because of the large gaps in our knowledge of Celtic religious practices, it is sometimes necessary to incorporate the practices of other Celtic peoples. However we make sure that we know what is historical, what is incorporated from other Celtic tribes and comparative religion, and what is UPG. Thorough research and equipping yourself with knowledge that is as accurate and complete as possible is the cornerstone of the Reconstructionist faith. Knowing what is not 100% accurate or complete is very important to us.

Yes, Alexie Kondratiev in his book, does seem to advocate a more pan-Celtic reconstructionism, but he's also makes it quite obvious that he is doing such, and makes the reader aware of it. However, if you read some of his other writings (many of his articles are available online) or talk to him, he is quite knowledgeable and aware of the differences between the various Celtic tribes and their religious practices.

As for Pecti-Wita, no self-respecting Recon thinks much of it, treating it as nothing more than 'neo-pagan nonsense.'

What intrigues me, in the concept of reconstruciton, is how one deals with the gaps of knowledge that are inevitable, especiialy in a Scottish sense, and how one deals with new evidence that may have a potentially huge impact on your beliefs. This is something that I, myself, have flirted with on and off, so I hope I don't sound totally offensive in my questions here...

We deal with new evidence as it comes and either modify our practices to accomodate it or make ourselves aware of the information and continue practicing as we were. I believe most CRs however would be more likely to modify their practices.

As I said before about the gaps in knowledge, we fill them in the best we can via comparative religion, contempory writings, etc.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

May 28th, 2004, 10:02 PM

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

May 28th, 2004, 10:21 PM

:woot: a thread on scottish reconstructionism! i've already learned things i've been unsure about for ages, within the space of five minutes! i always learn so much on your threads, mòrag, and thanks for all the links you posted to me over the last few weeks, too. :smoochypo

i'm very interested in learning gaidhlig... once heathenry is over. if i add another thingy, my head will explode! :weirdsmil

You're welcome hon, and if your head hasn't exploded yet, it never will. :fpipesmok

where were noric, galatian, and lepontic spoken? and are these continental celtic languages really and truely completely lost??? :foh: there are no attempts to reconstruct the languages? is it because they had no form of writing?

I would imagine that Noric was spoken in the region of the Noric Alps. From what I've read the Noric Alps are an eastern segment located in southern Austria. There is a breed of horse, the Noriker (or Noric) which is from that region and there is evidence from archaeological sites dated to the 6th century BCE that Celts in the region owned and breed horses. Noric Horse (http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/noric/)

The Galatian language was spoken by those Celts that migrated to what is now Turkey, and in fact they are probably the people of the New Testement Galatians. It was spoken up into the first millenium BCE. What we know of it is from a few words recorded by Greek historians.

There is another segment of the Alps along the Italian-Swiss border known as the Lepontine Alps. Again, I would imagine this is the region that Lepontic was spoken. Here are a couple links dealing with the language:

Lepontic (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~marisal/ie/lepontic.html)
Wikipedia - Lepontic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepontic_language)

skilly-nilly

May 28th, 2004, 10:40 PM

What a great and informative post :fprtyman2

Thanks---skilly-nilly

Morr

May 29th, 2004, 04:21 AM

Thank you soooooo much!!!
Even though I concentrate more on the Irish recon, I have no doubt all this information & links will help me very much :) :hugz:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

May 29th, 2004, 07:03 AM

Morr

May 29th, 2004, 08:10 AM

I plan on posting some more today. There will be book links and I'll try and get more into ritual practices, cosmology, etc.

Morr, I have some more Irish oriented links if you would like me to send them your way. Also some of those links deal with all the Celts, not just the Scots so you may want to look around them.

id love the Irish links, thanks so much!
and yeah i will dig up and look what i can get regarding the Celts in general, plus i love scotland too (i love everything Celtic really, but Irish the most lol), so it wouldnt hurt to check out the scottish links as well!

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

May 29th, 2004, 12:54 PM

Sure thing Morr, I'll go look-see what I posted in your Irish Recon thread and I'll add to the list there.

Seren_

May 29th, 2004, 04:56 PM

Morag,

Thank you for your very considered reply. I studied Celtic Civilisations and Archaeology at Uni because of my interest in their religious beliefs, as a pagan myself. I have to say that my enthusiasm for reconstructing anything was severely dented after I had my tutor's "academic caution" drummed into me. It's nice to see a more positive outlook, and I've spent a while exploring some of your links.

[QUOTE=Mòrag Elasaid MacDhòmhnaill]No, they did not speak a Brythonic language, which is P-Celtic, they spoke a Goidelic language, Q-Celtic. Scholars and linguists are quite clear on that point. The people we refer to as "Scots" are generally accepted to be the descendents of the Dal Riadan kingdom, which crossed from northeastern Ireland. Their language is descended from the original Gaelige that the Dal Riadan's spoke, eventually becoming Gàidhlig or Scottish Gaelic.

Here I have to disagree in part, mainly because I forgot to add the Dal Riadan's into it. Yes, the Dal Riadan's spoke Gaelige but were most likely to have been of Irish descent as you said, settling in the West of Scotland and establishing their own language in the area. It is likely that the language the Dal Riadan's replaced was partly Brythonic/partly Pictish, and excavations at Dumbarton Rock, for example (IIRC) and place-name evidence bears this out to a large extent. The Q-Celtic Gaelic of the Irish is a later linguistic addition to the mix, which I should have qualified in my statement. Because the tribes in Britain were very much gung-ho in their attitudes to expanding their borders, the extent to which they expanded into Scotland varied; just how far is not certain. Some scholars also believe that the different tribes were very multilingual, and so shared a lot of beliefs and ideas through trade and marriage etc very easily. And of course, not so long ago a large portion of Northern England was part of Scotland.

Scots is frequently thought of as merely a dialect of English, however it is not.

Having married a Scot who speaks the lingo, I wholeheartedly agree. :)

I think you are mixing up CRs with the general neo-pagan...Because of the large gaps in our knowledge of Celtic religious practices, it is sometimes necessary to incorporate the practices of other Celtic peoples. However we make sure that we know what is historical, what is incorporated from other Celtic tribes and comparative religion, and what is UPG.

I'm sure that I am mixing up CRs with general neo-pagans in this respect. I only know a very few recons, and mostly they're quite reticent about sharing with an audience. What I have noticed about a lot of CRs in particular is that strong political views are rarely very far away from how they define their religious beliefs (Kondatriev in particular), particularly on the language issue (which makes sense...when you study a culture, the best way to understand it is with the language).

However, I do wonder which language should be studied - the modern language of the area you are interested in, or the language closest to the period you're interested in. Obviously the latter would present some difficulties for e.g. the Picts, but is the language issue to "keep it alive" or aid your understanding and studying of the culture you are reconstructing from a historical sense?

I hope that makes sense, I think I'm beginning to ramble now...

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

May 29th, 2004, 10:06 PM

Neolithic and Bronze Age Scotland ~ P.J. Ashmore
A Guide to Early Celtic Remains in Britain ~ Peter Berresford Ellis
Celtic Dawn ~ Peter Berresford Ellis
The Chronicles of the Celts ~ Peter Berresford Ellis
The Celts: A History ~ Peter Berresford Ellis
The Druids ~ Peter Berresford Ellis
U]An Encyclopedia of Fairies[/U] ~ Katherine Mary Briggs
Popular Tales of the West Highlands, Volumes 1 & 2 ~ John Francis Campbell
More West Highland Tales ~ John Francis Campbell
Carmina Gadelica ~ Alexander Carmichael
The Phoenix: Celtic Realms ~ Nora Chadwick
Iron Age Communities in Britain ~ Barry Cunliffe
An Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology ~ Bob Curran
The Darker Supersitions of Scotland ~ J.G. Dalyell
The Celts: Prehistory to Present Day ~ John Davies
Celtic Spirituality ~ Oliver Davies
Scottish Folk and Fairy Tales ~ Sir George Douglas
Scotland: Environment and Archaeology, 8000 BC to 1000 AD ~ Kevin J. Edwards
Lady with a Mead Cup ~ Michael Enright
Fairy-Faith in Celtic Countries ~ Walter Y. Evans-Wentz
The Golden Bough ~ James Frazier
Kindling the Celtic Spirit ~ Mara Freeman
Celtic Goddesses: Warriors, Virgins, and Mothers ~ Miranda Green
Dictionary of Celtic Myth and Legend ~ Miranda Green
The Celtic World ~ Miranda Green
The Gods of the Celts ~ Miranda Green
The Tokens of Esteem: An Essay in Ritual Inhumanity ~ Patrck D. Harvey
Tomb of the Eagles: Death and Life in a Stone Age Tribe ~ John W. Hedges
Scottish Fairy Belief: A History ~ Lizanne Henderson
Stations of the Year: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain ~ Ronald Hutton
Power of Raven, Wisdom of Serpent ~ Noragh Jones
The Apple Branch ~ Alexei Kondratiev
Death War and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology and Practice ~ Bruce Lincoln
Scottish Customs ~ Sheila Livingston
The Complete Idiots Guide to Celtic Wisdom ~ Carl McColman
The Religion of the Ancient Celts ~ J.A. MacCulloch
Scottish Wonder Tales from Myth and Legend ~ Donald A. MacKenzie
West Highland Tales ~ Fitzroy MacLean
The Silver Bough, Volumes 1-4 ~ F. Marian MacNeill
In Search of the Indo-Europeans ~ J.P. Mallory
The Celts ~ Jean Markale
The Druids: Celtic Priests of Nature ~ Jean Markale
Women of the Celts ~ Jean Markale
The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic ~ Ralph Merrifield
A Handbook of the Scottish Gaelic World ~ Michael Newton
Orkneyinga Saga ~ Herman Palsson (Translator)
The Druids ~ Stuart Piggott
Scotland Before History ~ Stuart Piggott
The Early Pre-History of Scotland ~ Tony Pollard
Celtic Sacred Landscapes ~ Nigel Pennick
The Sacred World of the CeltsNigel Pennick
Scotland: Archaeology and Early History ~ J.N.G., Anna, and Graham Ritchie
Folklore of the Scottish Highlands ~ Anne Ross
Celtic Myth and Legend: From King Arthur to the Gaelic Gods and the Giants they Battled ~ Charles Squire
Ancient Scotland ~ Stewart Ross
The Underworld Initiation ~ R.J. Stewart
Earth Light ~ R.J. Stewart
Power Within the Land ~ R.J. Stewart
Ravens and Black Rain ~ Elizabeth Sutherland
The Supernatural Highlands ~ Francis Thompson
Scotland's First Settlers ~ C.R. Wickham-Jones

Generally speaking, you should be good with any books by Miranda Green (also known as Miranda Aldhouse Green or Miranda J. Green), Barry Cunliffe, Nigel Pennick, Anne Ross, Stuart Piggott, Jean Markale, Walter Y. Evans-Wentz, James Frazer, F. Marian MacNeill, Peter Berresford Ellis and John Francis Campbell.

Ron

May 29th, 2004, 10:21 PM

The P-Celtic languages are Cymraeg (Welsh), Brezhoneg (Breton), and Kernowek (Cornish). Much like Gaelg Vanninagh, Kernowek has completely died out as a native tongue but is currently being resurrected. The last monoglot speaker of Kernowek died in 1676. Brezhoneg is on the verge of completely dieing out as a language itself, though more recently there have been attempts to prevent this from happening.
yay!! Come what may to the Cymry, but we stand strong! :jamsessio We even survived in North Dakota, as a Mandan "native" indian tribe - the remenants of Prince Madog ap Owain Gwynedd!!! :sunny:

dôn bless!

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

May 29th, 2004, 10:24 PM

Morag,

Thank you for your very considered reply. I studied Celtic Civilisations and Archaeology at Uni because of my interest in their religious beliefs, as a pagan myself. I have to say that my enthusiasm for reconstructing anything was severely dented after I had my tutor's "academic caution" drummed into me. It's nice to see a more positive outlook, and I've spent a while exploring some of your links.

Here I have to disagree in part, mainly because I forgot to add the Dal Riadan's into it. Yes, the Dal Riadan's spoke Gaelige but were most likely to have been of Irish descent as you said, settling in the West of Scotland and establishing their own language in the area. It is likely that the language the Dal Riadan's replaced was partly Brythonic/partly Pictish, and excavations at Dumbarton Rock, for example (IIRC) and place-name evidence bears this out to a large extent. The Q-Celtic Gaelic of the Irish is a later linguistic addition to the mix, which I should have qualified in my statement. Because the tribes in Britain were very much gung-ho in their attitudes to expanding their borders, the extent to which they expanded into Scotland varied; just how far is not certain. Some scholars also believe that the different tribes were very multilingual, and so shared a lot of beliefs and ideas through trade and marriage etc very easily. And of course, not so long ago a large portion of Northern England was part of Scotland.

You bring up some good points here. When speaking of the Scots, I (I will not speak for other Scottish Recons) tend to be referring generally to those descended from the Dal Riadan's. This has much to do with my insistence that they spoke a Q-Celtic language. I've not been able to find very many good resources that deal much with the languages and culture of those who came before, such as the Picts and others that you mention and so I focus on them. The Cumbrian language of what is now Northern England, was in likely-hood one of those Brythonic languages that you mention were spoken in Scotland before the Dal Riadans moved in, or at the least closely related to them.

I'm sure that I am mixing up CRs with general neo-pagans in this respect. I only know a very few recons, and mostly they're quite reticent about sharing with an audience. What I have noticed about a lot of CRs in particular is that strong political views are rarely very far away from how they define their religious beliefs (Kondatriev in particular), particularly on the language issue (which makes sense...when you study a culture, the best way to understand it is with the language).

Yes, most CRs are rather reticent about sharing their knowledge. Most believe that if we do share our knowledge that it will be abused and taken out of context by other neo-pagans. Like I said the relations between the recon community and the neo-pagans is quite poor.

However, I do wonder which language should be studied - the modern language of the area you are interested in, or the language closest to the period you're interested in. Obviously the latter would present some difficulties for e.g. the Picts, but is the language issue to "keep it alive" or aid your understanding and studying of the culture you are reconstructing from a historical sense?

I hope that makes sense, I think I'm beginning to ramble now...

Personally I think we are better off studying both the modern and older forms of the languages when possible. I think starting off in learning the modern language is important for a couple reasons. Firstly, it is much easier to find language resources dealing with it as a modern language. Something else to keep in mind, is that if you already have a good grasp of the language in a modern context, you'll have a greater success rate when you start studying the early language.

As for why you should study the language, I believe it's a combination of both. I think it is our duty to keep the languages from dieing out. They are a very important part of the culture of the various Celtic people's and it would be a terrible loss should they be allowed to die. We should also study the language because as you said it can aid our understanding the of the culture and people.

And I'm enjoying your rambling. It's nice having someone to discuss all of this with. It keeps me on my toes, and I've learned from it as well. :fpipesmok

Loukhos

May 29th, 2004, 10:49 PM

Thank you for all the information.

I think I'll be busy reading for quite some time :smile:

Seren_

June 3rd, 2004, 11:40 AM

Morag,

You might find this of interest...

Archaeologists find possible neolithic ritual site in Scotland:
http://www.ukpagan.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3216&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

June 8th, 2004, 09:39 AM

Thanks for the article Seren.

Oh, and really I will be posting more stuff, such as info about the deities I deal with mostly and info on ritual practices and divination and the duile. Just haven't really had the time lately.

mucgwyrt

June 8th, 2004, 09:41 AM

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

June 8th, 2004, 09:41 AM

Yeah, because I've studied them so much. :razz:

mucgwyrt

June 8th, 2004, 10:08 AM

Well nyuh! :razz:

mucgwyrt

June 23rd, 2004, 09:36 AM

*taps foot impatiently*

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

June 23rd, 2004, 11:50 AM

Sorry! I've been soooo busy. I promise I'll work on it this week. Does that make you happy little Miss Impatience? :eyez:

mucgwyrt

June 24th, 2004, 03:03 AM

:o Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't!

Seren_

July 8th, 2004, 02:33 PM

Oh, and really I will be posting more stuff, such as info about the deities I deal with mostly and info on ritual practices and divination and the duile. Just haven't really had the time lately.

Just bumping, 'cos I'm really interested and I wouldn't want the thread to get forgotten...

mucgwyrt

July 9th, 2004, 03:17 AM

:uhhuhuh:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

July 23rd, 2004, 11:41 AM

Bumping for Cardoc

Cradoc

July 23rd, 2004, 12:42 PM

:-)

mothwench

July 23rd, 2004, 03:42 PM

i was just surfing away.... and found this:
http://www.cyberscotia.com/ancient-lothian/index.html

it's a site about cairnpapple which is an ancient ritual site dating back to 3500 bce.

the thing that caught my eye was further down the page, a kind of a calendar that marks not only the usual imbolc, lunasdal, samhain, beltaine festivals, but also the solstices and equinoxes, as well as four other festivals.

If an observer were to position themselves at the cove and look out across a given pit, they could look towards the horizon and, at the right time of year, view the sunrise in that direction. Our alignments from the cove to the various pits are derived from Piggott's site plan and are based on an arbitrary centre point situated amongst the stones of the cove, with the centres of the pits as drawn by Piggott. If the pits once contained stones or timber posts, then the actual lines of view may have differed slightly from those given. Looking Eastwards from the cove, viewing from left-to-right, the derived alignments are:

Pit G - Summer Solstice (Midsummer's Day)
Pit F - Bealltuinn & Lùnasdal (Beltane / May Day & Lammas)
Pit E - ? ? ? (April 15th & August 30th)
Pit D - Vernal Equinox & Autumnal Equinox
Pit C - ? ? ? (March 5th & October 11th)
Pit B - Samhuinn & Imbolc / Oimelc (Halloween / All Saints & St. Bride's / Candlemas)
Pit A - Winter Solstice (Midwinter's Day / Yule)

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

July 23rd, 2004, 03:46 PM

Ohhh, thankies mothwench. You're so smart! :smoochypo

Seren_

July 23rd, 2004, 04:35 PM

i was just surfing away.... and found this:
http://www.cyberscotia.com/ancient-lothian/index.html

it's a site about cairnpapple which is an ancient ritual site dating back to 3500 bce.

I've been there!!!! :boing:

You know the site has a fantastic view, but it can't be seen at all until you actually get there. There are a few sites like that in Scotland. Archaeologists think there might be a reason for it...

mothwench

July 24th, 2004, 01:05 PM

Seren_

July 24th, 2004, 03:44 PM

sounds mysterious. :hmmmmm: :D
and i'm on a roll... look what i found today: an article about the apparently pagan custom of "burning the clavie".
http://www.pearl.arts.ed.ac.uk/Tocher/Vol-44/44-091/44-091fr.html
here's a link to their home: http://www.pearl.arts.ed.ac.uk/

so what exactly is a clavie then? :huh:

Well according to this site, http://www.scotland-info.co.uk/clavie.htm:

Clavie - probably derived from the Gaelic ‘cliabh’ (clee-av).
A wicker object used for carrying, a basket, pannier, creel or cage.

Nantonos

July 24th, 2004, 10:57 PM

i was just surfing away.... and found this:
http://www.cyberscotia.com/ancient-lothian/index.html

it's a site about cairnpapple which is an ancient ritual site dating back to 3500 bce.

I have been there many a time, used to live in cycling distance from it when I was a teenager.

The actual site is nice, nestled in the Bathgate Hills; the mound itself has been extensively excavated out, and replaced by a concrete shell. Its all grass on the outside, but on te inside its rather like climbing down into a nuclear bunker or something.

the thing that caught my eye was further down the page, a kind of a calendar that marks not only the usual imbolc, lunasdal, samhain, beltaine festivals, but also the solstices and equinoxes, as well as four other festivals.

Interesting (note that this method always gives pairs of festivals). Need to re-read some archaeoastronomy stuff, its been a while.

Note that there is a certain observer effect in that alignments to the eightfold wheel are regularly checked for, while 'random' alignments are not. But its interesting nonetheless. Especially if other sites also have alignments to similar dates.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

July 25th, 2004, 11:25 AM

Judging from the article it almost sounds like the Clavie is a burning torch.

"When we were young they carried these Clavies around the town and then made their way to the centre of the town, to this corner where two or four roads met and they dumped the Clavie in the middle of the street. Everybody else did this and by the time a lot of Clavies had been dumped there you had quite a bonfire"

If you pile up a bunch of burning torches it would probably make quite the bonfire, you know?

And this line too, also adds to my suspiscion that they were torches of some kind, though I think it sounds less like they were actual torches, rather than combustable material turned into a torch.

"Well, people with foresight put their clothes poles inside if they possibly could: otherwise the clothes poles vanished, and anything combustible vanished from your backyard or your garden between the end of October and Christmas. It all ended up in these Clavies.

...

My grandmother was very deaf and she'd been in the house alone one evening. Being very canny, you see - my granny belonged to near Inverness she brought her paraffin flask in and put it behind her chair in the living room. But when my grandfather went to fill the lamps there was no flask. Somebody had crept in and picked it up because they knew granny was deaf and grand ad was out."

Nantonos

July 25th, 2004, 12:26 PM

I have snipped most of this posting, largely because I agree with it and have nothing further to add. I wanted to comment an a few areas where i disagreed.

I feel that the most important thing anyone interested in any Celtic Reconstructionist path can do is learn to speak/read the language of whichever Celts they are interested. I can't stress this enough.

Yes and no. Its important; its not necessarily the most important thing and it depends on exactly which area of Celtic culture one is CR'ing. It also depeds on whether you take language or material culture (or religion) as the most characteristic and important thing.

In my case - yes, I have studied Gaulish, I am on a couple of mailing lists about it, I post there and I have the relevant books for introductory to intermediate study. Its hard though, because its linguistic archaeology.

Picking a modern language and studying it does not necessarily tell you a lot about an ancient culture (depending on the rate of change of the language. Someone doing reconstruction of the religio Romana would be better to learn ciceronian latin than Mediaeval Latin or indeed modern Italian, to use an example.

There is so much that can be lost in translation, so reading the myths and stories in the original language is something that we should all try to do, though for some it's impossible as the language has been forgotten.

Or because there were no 'myths and stories'. Myths and stories are one sort of (secondary) evidence; they have to be examined looking for hints of the primary evidenxce that is assumed to lie behind them. Other types of CR have different sources of evidence.

I'm still trying to learn the Gàidhlig language myself, fitting it between my school, looking for a job, and being a wife and mother. So while I can answer some questions about it, I'm not an expert. However, I can try to help anyone who is interested.

This is modern Scottish Gaelic, I assume, as spoken today? How differnt is that from 8th century Irish?

There are only six Celtic languages currently spoken, or even alive, today. All of the continental languages: Celt-Iberian, Noric, Galatian, Gaulish, and Lepontic are lost, along with the Insular Cumbrian language.

Several inaccuracies there. The old 'Six Celtic Nations' thing always gets me annoyed but sticking to languages: not spoken as a primary language in the 21st century is not the same as 'lost'.

There is a regrettable tendency to try and shoehorn all of Celtic history into the geographical areas where it is currently spoken.People interested in CR should be aware of this tendency and on the look out for it. A good antidote is a historical atlas. I highly recommend:

Haywood, John The Historical Atlas of the Celtic World. Thames & Hudson, 2001. ISBN 0-500-05109-7

Using that information, it can be seen that the division into 'celtic' and 'insular' is a historical one; 'insular' British started out identical to 'Continental' Gaulish, and changed over time while Gaulish died out by the fourth century. It was then re-imported back to the continent into Brittany, becoming Breton.

Some of the continental languages you list are identical except for their writing system (eg Lepontic which used an Etrucan/Alpine alphabet). Gaulish was written in a number of different scripts including Greek and latin scripts; sometimes by the same people at the same time.

It is also possible that the Picts spoke a Celtic language, though it has also been suggested that the Picts spoke a language closer to Basque.

Source for the 'closer to Basque' please?

The Insular languages are further divided into two groups; Q-Celtic or Goidelic, and P-Celtic or Brythonic. The key difference that divides the two groups is that in the P-Celtic languages the p sound has replaced the hard c or q sound of the Q-Celtic languages.

That implies that P-Celtic is derived from Q-Celtic. It would be more accurate to say that in Q-Celtic languages, PIE *kw became Q (or, indeed, C) wheras in P-Celtic ones it became P.

This is most easily exhibited in the Celtic word for son. In the Q-Celtic Gàidhlig it is mac, whereas in the P-Celtic Cymraeg it is map.

And in neither is it maq. In Gaulish this was represented by an -icn-, for example my son Taranos would be Taranos Nantonicnos.

The P-Celtic languages are Cymraeg (Welsh), Brezhoneg (Breton), and Kernowek (Cornish). Much like Gaelg Vanninagh, Kernowek has completely died out as a native tongue but is currently being resurrected. The last monoglot speaker of Kernowek died in 1676. Brezhoneg is on the verge of completely dieing out as a language itself, though more recently there have been attempts to prevent this from happening.

I was surprised to read what you said about Breton, since it seems to be rather popular. Since you concentrated on still extant or recently extinct languages, you omitted to mention Cumbrian and before that, Brittish. I will return to British in a comment on a different post of yours.

That was probably more information than you needed or wanted to know about Celtic languages.

It was less than I would have liked but maybe I am a bit wierd.

Thanks for starting off the discussion, and sorry I missed the whole thread somehow. Hope belated comments are still welcome.

Nantonos

July 25th, 2004, 12:33 PM

where were noric, galatian, and lepontic spoken? and are these continental celtic languages really and truely completely lost??? :foh: there are no attempts to reconstruct the languages? is it because they had no form of writing?

No they are not completely and truly lost, but (a descendent of those languages)is not spoken in the same area in the 21st century which seemed to be the definition of 'lost' that Mòrag was using.

Yes, there are attempts to reconstruct those (closely related) languages.

Yes, they had writing. Galatian was written using Greek letters and Lepontic was written using Etruscan letters. I am not sure about Noric, but the Pannonian Celts used Latin letters. Gaulish used Greek letters early on and in the south, and Latin letters later and in the north.

Since these languages formed the roots of the later insular P-Celtic languages, then they are not lost in the sense that they evolved into British, and thence into Welsh and Breton still spoken today. But that s a lot of evolution.

Nantonos

July 25th, 2004, 12:57 PM

You're also correct when you say the name Scotland didn't mean anything in pre-history, however it is a term that we use so that others know of what we're speaking. Although, the Romans called the entire area Caledonia or Alba, so there is some frame of reference for lumping all the people of the region now known as Scotland together.

That is partially correct. they called the region that we would now cal the Highlands and Islands Caledonia. They called the entire island Britannia, and the entirety of Ireland, Hibernia.

No, they did not speak a Brythonic language, which is P-Celtic, they spoke a Goidelic language, Q-Celtic. Scholars and linguists are quite clear on that point.

You are both right, at different historical periods. Seren is completely correct stating that Argyll spoke a P-Celtic language. After, all the people there were called Epidii not Equidii.

The people we refer to as "Scots" are generally accepted to be the descendents of the Dal Riadan kingdom, which crossed from northeastern Ireland.

This is wildly wrong, sorry. The people we refer to as Scots have a very mixed parentage of which the Dal Riadan invaders are one , but by no means the only, strand; and it depends on where in Scotland you refer to.

Their language is descended from the original Gaelige that the Dal Riadan's spoke, eventually becoming Gàidhlig or Scottish Gaelic. The same thing happened on the Isle of Mann, though their language is more distant from it's original form, because unfortunately much of the spelling was Anglicized after it's resurrection.

This is correct, that Scotish Gaelic is derived from the Old Irish spoken by the dal Riada. Mòrag, I refer you to the map on p.107 of Haywood to see the Lorships of the Isles and the eastwards boundary of the maximum extent of Gaelic speaking areas. Before that, the map on p.105 shows the lands of Somerled and the map on p.93 shows those of the Dal Riada

When talking about the Pictish peoples, recons are very careful to differentiate them from the Scots, as they were quite different from each other.

They were, yes; however you seem to be dividing up Scotland two ways and forgetting the third, British-speaking, people.

The Pictish language might possibly be Brythonic, but we're not sure of that. Like both you and I said, it may not even by a Indo-European language at all; unfortunately not enough of it remains to make that determination.

Correct. It has to be done through distribution maps of material culture (and a small amount of placeneme evidence).

The only other Brythonic language that I know of possibly being spoken anywhere in the vicinity Scotland is "Northern Welsh," or more properly Cumbrian, which as I stated is dead.

I find that a very worrying statement; your model seems to be of the modern English-Scottish border with Dal Riad aand Picts above it and Saxons below it, and British written out entirely. Where do you think that Cumbrian came from?

Then again I don't know anyone who would consider Cumbria to be part of Scotland.

Well, the Scots did, until it was lost to England in 1092.

Therefore it's fairly safe to say their language was Goidelic, not Brythonic.

Hopefully my posts here and elsewhere on this thread, and Seren's original posts, convinced you to rething that opinion in the light of historical evidence of which, it seems, you were unaware.

Good posting. As usual I snipped most of the parts I agreed with.

Nantonos

July 25th, 2004, 01:03 PM

Judging from the article it almost sounds like the Clavie is a burning torch.

There is a picture of a burning Clavie on the plate facing p.208 of vol. 4 of the Silver Bough. There is a description on pp. 209-211.

Nantonos

July 25th, 2004, 01:25 PM

Linguistically, what is now considered to be Scotland was subject to at least two different languages during pagan times - the Brythonic language (that was the precursor of modern Welsh, for example), and Pictish - which may not have been Celtic at all (possibly Scandinavian, possibly Basque, possibly pre-Celtic...). This suggests the possibility of at least two different cultures operating in one area, and with that, there is the suggestion of two distinct beliefs and practices, perhaps.

This is completely correct, depending on what exactly you consider the boundary of 'pagan times' to be, but its certainly correct up to 500. It was only after that, that Irish became itroduced into Islay, Arran, Kintyre, Mull, Tiree, and parts of Argyllshire.

At that time the Picts had expanded southwards and westwards; at the start of the 6th century the boundary between Pictland and the British-speaking kingdoms of Strathclyde and Lothian was the Forth-Clyde (roughly the old Antonine Wall).

Nantonos

July 25th, 2004, 01:36 PM

i was just surfing away.... and found this:
http://www.cyberscotia.com/ancient-lothian/index.html

it's a site about cairnpapple which is an ancient ritual site dating back to 3500 bce.

From that site:

So, if we assume that all three elements of the placename have Celtic roots, "Cairn(ie)papple" could mean something along the lines of "Cairn of the Tents", "Cairn of the People", or "Cairn of the Eye". This latter interpretation seems most appealing, given the eye-like shape of the oval henge, and also the line-of-sight afforded from the summit to so many other local prehistoric sites. No doubt, though, other possible derivations also exist, and ultimately, it is impossible to say for sure which is the true meaning of the third element, papple, although with its final consonant -le, a Brythonic (Old Welsh) -ll root seems likely. Moreover, if the root was Gaelic, the central -ie- element as a' would require the aspiration of the following consonant, as ph-, and since this aspiration is not apparently present, a Brythonic root can be considered the most likely. If so, then the placename would have originated prior to the Northumbrian Anglian expansion into Lothian around 638AD, and would come from the period when the region was known as Gododdin, which was also the name of the Brythonic tribe who lived here, known to the Romans as the Votadini, and whose heroic demise was commemmorated in Aneirin's seventh century poem, Y Gododdin.

My italics. In case Morag needs more convincing aboutthe P-Celtic British.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

July 25th, 2004, 04:59 PM

You brought up some good points. My point however is that as a Scottish Recon I'm dealing strictly with those Scots which are descended from the Dal Riadan's which did clearly speak a Goidlec language as oppossed to Brythonic. I left the British out not because I don't think there weren't any in the area (hence why I mentioned Cumbria in the first place, which while it was at one point part of Scotland, it no longer is, which is why I said I don't think anyone considers it to be such) but because they aren't the people I'm dealing with as a Scottish Recon. My focus, and the intended focus of this thread should I get some more time to right an in depth post, is on the Dal Riadans Scottish. Not that I believe the Brythonic and Pictish people in the area had no influence on the Dal Riadans, just that I'm putting my focus on the Dal Riadans. And even more specifically I'm focused on the Isles, which as you pointed out were Gaelic speaking. Maybe I should be more clear that I'm dealing with the Dal Raidan Scottish and not any of the Brythonic or Pictish people in the area.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 18th, 2004, 02:34 PM

bump for Cradoc

Cradoc

August 18th, 2004, 10:33 PM

Thanks, I will read and study what you have here.

Nantonos

August 19th, 2004, 03:51 PM

You brought up some good points. My point however is that as a Scottish Recon I'm dealing strictly with those Scots which are descended from the Dal Riadan's which did clearly speak a Goidlec language as oppossed to Brythonic.

Thanks for the clarification. My point in return is that those particular Scots were not the entirety of Scottish peoples and also that, at the time they invaded Scotland, they were Christian not Pagan.

I left the British out not because I don't think there weren't any in the area (hence why I mentioned Cumbria in the first place, which while it was at one point part of Scotland, it no longer is, which is why I said I don't think anyone considers it to be such)

Okay, but Lothian is still part of Scotland, and also you implied in one of your posts that Scotland was entirely aither dal Raidan or Pictish and stated that a P-Celtic language was not spoken in Scotland, both of which were factually incorrect. However, we seem to have that all sorted now.

but because they aren't the people I'm dealing with as a Scottish Recon. My focus, and the intended focus of this thread should I get some more time to right an in depth post, is on the Dal Riadans Scottish.

Which is perfectly fine, of cours

Not that I believe the Brythonic and Pictish people in the area had no influence on the Dal Riadans, just that I'm putting my focus on the Dal Riadans. And even more specifically I'm focused on the Isles, which as you pointed out were Gaelic speaking. Maybe I should be more clear that I'm dealing with the Dal Raidan Scottish and not any of the Brythonic or Pictish people in the area.

That would be helpful, but the point has been clarified enough by your posting here.

darkisland51

August 19th, 2004, 09:43 PM

Slante!
I was reading the post regarding lost Gaelic languages. Although Gaulish Gaelic is "lost" except to, generally, scholars as a living language, there have been attempts to revive it. Check out "The Sacred Cauldron", by Tadhg MacCrossan (Tom Cross). The rituals he developed for the book are all in Gaulish (Galatan) Gaelic, and if I remember correctly, he lists sources in the bibliography of Galatan dictionaries and such.
There is also a version of Gaelic spoken in the French province of Brittany, which I think is separate from the other dialects.
The Picts ARE a quandry! Although some scholars believe that they may have been proto-Celtic, and were certainly pre-Celtic, others are more inclined to a Germanic or Basque (as noted above) connection. Tony Steele, in her two books on "The Water Witches", offers the idea that they were related to the Frisians, who were cented in western Britain, but stretched up into northern Scotland. The verdict is still out, though, since thee's very little true evidence, apparently.

--DaeKharrna

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 19th, 2004, 09:55 PM

There is also a version of Gaelic spoken in the French province of Brittany

Of Gaelic? Are you sure you mean Gaelic and not a Brythonic language. I know they speak three variations of Breton which is a Brythonic language. I'd be interested to hear if there was actually a Gaelic language spoken there as well.

Also, I'm confused as to your reference to the referring to Galatian and Gaulish as the same. From what I understand Galatian was the Celtic language that was spoken in the region of modern day Turkey. The Galatian originally moved there from Gaul, but they did develop their own language and culture.

darkisland51

August 19th, 2004, 10:14 PM

Ishna

September 3rd, 2004, 03:24 AM

*sniffles* I was looking forward to the cosmology and the ritual practices. *whines*

One thing I find a bit intimidating about the recon world is the fact that every word that comes out of one's mouth (or fingers, in this case) are closely examined and relentlessly challanged to the nth degree. While I understand this helps prevent the spread of mis-information, no one can know absolutely everything there is to know, and it all seems so agressive. People get so riled up about it.

Ishna.

Kern

September 9th, 2004, 11:57 AM

I have read many of the links all of you have posted...and most are good but I dont trust any of the ones that speak of January 1st has the new year when referencing the calendar.I just leave those sites. :vanish:
As for language,,yeah It can be good to learn some,but IMO the main thing should be the beliefs and practices,not the language.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 9th, 2004, 12:10 PM

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 9th, 2004, 12:11 PM

Ishna, I will post ritual and cosmology info as soon as I have the time. I've been really busy lately and just haven't been able to put together a long in depth post about that sort of thing.

Seren_

September 9th, 2004, 03:40 PM

For a recon language is key. By not speaking the language you loose out on so much because you can't read the source material.

*Nodding* I really wish I was gifted with languages. But I'm trying.

As for those sites that list January 1 as the New Year, Hogmanay, after the church took over became a massively important holiday to the Scots. Sure it may not be in the right time period, but many of the New Years traditions that were celebrated at Samhuinn were moved to coincide with Hogmanay, the modern new year. So yes, you should read those and realize that they are important and included for a reason.

Anne Ross's Folklore of the Scottish Highlands illustrates this nicely.

There's also an interesting article I saw posted on another board recently:

Samhain: Not the New Year (http://bonrhys.idx.com.au/explosion.htm)

Which is more general in scope, but does raise a few questions; apparently the origin of the "Celtic New Year" is based on a nineteenth century lecture. I'm not entirely convinced by all the arguments, I have to say. But it made me think.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 9th, 2004, 03:43 PM

I've read that article Seren. It posits some interesting theories. I do definitely want to read over it again a little more in depth though and really look into it, so thanks for posting the link.

ETA: I'm also not gifted with languages, and have been struggling mightly with learning Gàidhlig, but I'm trying. It would be much easier however if I had a native speaker around here to correct me and help me with more than just pronunciation.

Ishna

September 10th, 2004, 01:14 AM

I tried to learn Gaidhlig a couple of years ago, but I never got incredibally far into it, unfortunately, mainly because I didn't have the resources to me motivated enough.

Take your time, Morag, I was just making sure you hadn't run away. :D

Ishna.

Kern

September 10th, 2004, 10:04 AM

For a recon language is key. By not speaking the language you loose out on so much because you can't read the source material. Sure you can read it in translation, but there is much to be desired in translation. So much meaning is lost when you take it out of it's language. Some words or phrases just don't make sense. Not to mention that the Gaelic speaking people were very big on word play that was intrinsic to the very meaning of what they were saying and much of that just doesn't make sense to one who doesn't understand the language.

As for those sites that list January 1 as the New Year, Hogmanay, after the church took over became a massively important holiday to the Scots. Sure it may not be in the right time period, but many of the New Years traditions that were celebrated at Samhuinn were moved to coincide with Hogmanay, the modern new year. So yes, you should read those and realize that they are important and included for a reason.

True,but you didnt see Druids and people running around trying to speak the ancient Indo European language,when doeing rituals or conveying messages.They conveyed them in the language of the time.I am not saying people shouldnt learn some Ghalig/Gaelic,but it shouldnt be more imortant than the beliefs and ways.

IMO what ever practices changed after xtain or roman influences are not important and should not be a part of any Recon path,unless its Roman or Xtian.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 10th, 2004, 10:22 AM

True,but you didnt see Druids and people running around trying to speak the ancient Indo European language,when doeing rituals or conveying messages.They conveyed them in the language of the time.I am not saying people shouldnt learn some Ghalig/Gaelic,but it shouldnt be more imortant than the beliefs and ways.

IMO what ever practices changed after xtain or roman influences are not important and should not be a part of any Recon path,unless its Roman or Xtian.

IN PEACE
ALDWYN

Who said we were using beliefs that changed after christian or roman influence? If you are referring to understanding traditions associated with Hogmanay it's because in many cases they were the very same traditions associated with Samhuinn but as Hogmanay supplanted Samhuinn as the New Year, they were celebrated then.

As for the language, all I can say is I guess that's why you're not a Scottish Recon. Nor can I say that even if you desired to be such would you be accepted in the Celtic Recon community with that type of attitude. The Scotti/Dal Riadans wouldn't have used the language of the Indo-Eurpean peoples because they didn't practice the religoin of the IE people. Their religion was something completely separate to that of the IE people, so I really can't see what you're getting at here. The correlation you are trying to draw doesn't make any sense. Like I said above, much of the practices and beliefs of the Dal-Riadans doesn't make sense out of context of their language and culture. Without a good base understanding of their language and culture you can't even begin to understand half of what they believed and why. By the way it's Gàidhlig, not Ghalig.

Furthermore, I am not a Druid, and what the druids practiced while it relates in some way to my path, it is not my own. I practice the religion, as well as it can determined, of the people, not the clergy. There are quite a few differences and I would appreciate it if you would remember that in the future. If you would like examples, I can give you plenty, just let me know.

Kern

September 10th, 2004, 11:13 AM

Who said we were using beliefs that changed after christian or roman influence? If you are referring to understanding traditions associated with Hogmanay it's because in many cases they were the very same traditions associated with Samhuinn but as Hogmanay supplanted Samhuinn as the New Year, they were celebrated then.

As for the language, all I can say is I guess that's why you're not a Scottish Recon. Nor can I say that even if you desired to be such would you be accepted in the Celtic Recon community with that type of attitude. The Scotti/Dal Riadans wouldn't have used the language of the Indo-Eurpean peoples because they didn't practice the religoin of the IE people. Their religion was something completely separate to that of the IE people, so I really can't see what you're getting at here. The correlation you are trying to draw doesn't make any sense. Like I said above, much of the practices and beliefs of the Dal-Riadans doesn't make sense out of context of their language and culture. Without a good base understanding of their language and culture you can't even begin to understand half of what they believed and why. By the way it's Gàidhlig, not Ghalig.

Furthermore, I am not a Druid, and what the druids practiced while it relates in some way to my path, it is not my own. I practice the religion, as well as it can determined, of the people, not the clergy. There are quite a few differences and I would appreciate it if you would remember that in the future. If you would like examples, I can give you plenty, just let me know.

Didnt the use of January 31st come after the Roman and Xtain use if it as the NY?That was my point.It was because of them that it was changed it wasnt changed by the Celtic Tribes of Scotland.

As for the language issue I was merly stating my oppinion,but Whether or not I am accepted by some man made path I could care less(What matters to me is whether my beliefs are coherent with what my ancestors believed,not what language they spoke.And in my oppinon it was the transferring of that knowledge from one person to another that mattered,not what lingo it was in that was the point I was trying to make),but everyone has their oppinions,I wasnt trying to down yours,Sorry if thats the way it appeared.

I am Always open to learning new thing also.Just dont have much time to learn another lingo,but I am not going to let that defer me from learning about the beliefs of my ancestors.

Rockprincess

September 10th, 2004, 11:24 AM

I am Always open to learning new thing also.Just dont have much time to learn another lingo,but I am not going to let that defer me from learning about the beliefs of my ancestors.

Well, Aldwyn, I think that is what separates you and me from people like Mòrag. You and I are not reconstructionists, we are just learning about the beliefs of our ancestors. She is a reconstructionist, and attempts to *live* the faith of her ancestors. Reconstructionism what this thread is about, so it's perfectly valid for her to say that one should learn the language in order to do it properly.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 10th, 2004, 11:25 AM

Just because it was later changed doesn't mean it's not worth learning about. They are the same traditions, why would you not want to learn about them just because they were celebrated on a different date?

I'd love to know how you plan on understanding half of their beliefs if you refuse to learn the language. Like I said many, if not most ,don't make sense when taken out of the language. Words and phrases that are intrinsic to the meaning don't always translate well into another language. Certainly the word play doesn't. When I can get home to my sources I'll post some examples so you know what I mean if you are interested.

I don't exactly have time myself, but I make the time, because understanding their beliefs and what they meant is important to me. I have a 15 month old child who is teething, a husband I have to take care of because he threw out his back, I work full time, I am house-hunting, I'm in school, and what little free time I do have is occupied by social obligations that I can't just say no, I don't have time to go. Tell me, where do you think I have time to learn something just on a whim. I learn the language because it's necessary to understanding my ancestors and their path.

Furthermore, my religion is not man-made. My beliefs and practices are such because they were ordained to be so by the gods. I find it quite insulting that you would denigrate my path and beliefs in such a fashion.

Kern

September 10th, 2004, 12:30 PM

Just because it was later changed doesn't mean it's not worth learning about. They are the same traditions, why would you not want to learn about them just because they were celebrated on a different date?

When I can get home to my sources I'll post some examples so you know what I mean if you are interested.

Furthermore, my religion is not man-made. My beliefs and practices are such because they were ordained to be so by the gods. I find it quite insulting that you would denigrate my path and beliefs in such a fashion.

First I wasnt talking about your beliefs as being man made,I meant organizations that say you have to learn a language to belong to the religion of that group..Sorry If I insulted you that wasnt my intention.

The reason of my choice not to learn about Romanised ways or dates that were added to the Celtic or Anglo Saxon is just my choice,I want to learn how the Celts and Anglo Saxons practised before that not after the Romanisation/Xtianization of it.

I am sorry again for any insults to you or any one else.I was just trying to state that I am not interested in post Roman additions and wasnt willing to join an organization that required one to learn an ancient language,when IMO the beliefs matter more and how we live our lives,not the official language.I personally would love to learn Gaelic and Ango Saxon but I am not going to fret about it if I never do.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 10th, 2004, 01:07 PM

ap Dafydd

September 10th, 2004, 01:27 PM

True,but you didnt see Druids and people running around trying to speak the ancient Indo European language,when doeing rituals or conveying messages.They conveyed them in the language of the time.I am not saying people shouldnt learn some Ghalig/Gaelic,but it shouldnt be more imortant than the beliefs and ways.

IMO what ever practices changed after xtain or roman influences are not important and should not be a part of any Recon path,unless its Roman or Xtian.

I know that R A S MacAlistair in "Secret Languages of Ireland", did posit that the Druids made use of the older language, though I don't know whether his theory has been overturned since.

From my own point of view (being of the Brython rather than the Gael) I do believe that the language of ritual is very important. Marian Green impressed me when she wrote that it shows respect for the divinities of your path to make the effort to address them in their own language (or its descendant).

Taking that on a step, what does it mean? Firstly, for many followers of a Celtic path, it means putting in the hard work and commitment to your tradition to go out and learn the language. I learned Welsh as an adult so I can attest to this. Not only that, but by showing your commitment to the language, you contribute to the survival, life and development of the culture whose spiritual tradition you are following.

Also, the language that you use affects very much the kind of ritual that you do. I don't know whether it's the same for the Gaedhlig, but in Welsh, there is a formal, literary version of the language which is perfect for ritual. Many Pagans try to capture this in English by using mediaeval forms of the language (what I call thee thy thou thum stuff) which doesn't always work. Why? To try to use language to create the sense of "otherness" that's essential to ritual. In Welsh that's far more easy and doesn't sound anachronistic.

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 10th, 2004, 01:32 PM

Thank you Ffred. It's exactly the point I was trying to make, but was just too frustrated to say articulately enough.

Kern

September 10th, 2004, 01:38 PM

And as I said several times, many of the traditions associated with Hogmanay are the very same traditions associated with Samhuinn when that was New Years. You are missing out on a lot by refusing to study those traditions because you fail to understand that they are what you're looking for.

I wasnt saying the traditions of Hogmany were not associated with Samhuinn,just the date of Jan31st. The traditions themselves I agree with just not the Roman Date of January.

And I see both of your points and they are good ones.But learning an ancient language still isnt the most important thing in religion.Well IMO.I may be wrong but to me, if I go around speaking words that I only use in ritual or prayers seems to much like a show and not real faith,but thats just the way I feel and those who choose to do so then I respect them for that.

Rockprincess

September 10th, 2004, 01:47 PM

I wasnt saying the traditions of Hogmany were not associated with Samhuinn,just the date of Jan31st. The traditions themselves I agree with just not the Roman Date of January.

I think Mòrag was trying to point out that by leaving the sites that give the Jan 31 date, you miss out on the "tradition" information in them. And that you were saying that you don't know whether the rest of the info on them is valid, since the new years date is wrong. Maybe phrasing it that way specificially will clarify it for you both.

Nantonos

September 11th, 2004, 12:18 AM

I wasnt saying the traditions of Hogmany were not associated with Samhuinn,just the date of Jan31st. The traditions themselves I agree with just not the Roman Date of January.

The Roman date was 23 March.

Nantonos

September 11th, 2004, 12:20 AM

The reason of my choice not to learn about Romanised ways or dates that were added to the Celtic or Anglo Saxon is just my choice,I want to learn how the Celts and Anglo Saxons practised before that not after the Romanisation/Xtianization of it.

You do realise that the Anglo-Saxons were *after* the Romans, right?

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 11th, 2004, 06:05 AM

Not to mention that the Scottish tribes were never conquered by the Romans. That's why they built the Antonine and Hadrian's walls.

Nantonos

September 11th, 2004, 06:27 AM

Not to mention that the Scottish tribes were never conquered by the Romans.

Being in Ireland at the time probably made that easier :T

That's why they built the Antonine and Hadrian's walls.

No, that was to separate the British that could be conquered from those that could not.

If you mean modern Scotland, though, then those south of the Antonine wall were conquered, at least briefly. (The Antonie Wall is in Scotland).

Nantonos

September 11th, 2004, 07:54 AM

There's also an interesting article I saw posted on another board recently:

Samhain: Not the New Year (http://bonrhys.idx.com.au/explosion.htm)

Which is more general in scope, but does raise a few questions; apparently the origin of the "Celtic New Year" is based on a nineteenth century lecture. I'm not entirely convinced by all the arguments, I have to say. But it made me think.

I am reading it now; it makes some good points. I can mention a related incident. On a list, people were discussing the Coligny calendar. Some (primarily Irish-focussed) scholars were saying that the month 'Samonios' (which is known to mean 'Summer month' in Gaulish) had to be Samhain and had to be November because that is the way it was in the later Irish calendar (nince centuries later).

I made myself rather unpopular by stating that Gaulish language and society was best studied in its own cultural context, whithout assumptions or dogma from later periods. Gaulish is a study in its own right, not a handy cultural backstop that can be cherry-picked for things that support Irish studies while ignoring inconvenient facts that don't fit.

This was supported by some on the list, including some notable and well respected scholars in the field, but a couple of CR and CT on the list would have none of it. Which was sad. Perhaps i struck too close to the bone regarding their motivations.

Basically I don't think reconstructionism of any period is best served by imposing dogma, declaring certain subjects off limits, and regarding new historical or archaeological material as a threat.

Still reading that article. But its making me think, too. In particular the use of 1 August in the Irish mediaeval calendar.

Kern

September 11th, 2004, 03:17 PM

You do realise that the Anglo-Saxons were *after* the Romans, right?
Greettings !
Yeah I Knew that! :hehehehe:
When did they change it to Jan31st if it wasnt from xtain influence?

Kern

September 11th, 2004, 04:08 PM

I am reading it now; it makes some good points. I can mention a related incident. On a list, people were discussing the Coligny calendar. Some (primarily Irish-focussed) scholars were saying that the month 'Samonios' (which is known to mean 'Summer month' in Gaulish) had to be Samhain and had to be November because that is the way it was in the later Irish calendar (nince centuries later).

I made myself rather unpopular by stating that Gaulish language and society was best studied in its own cultural context, whithout assumptions or dogma from later periods. Gaulish is a study in its own right, not a handy cultural backstop that can be cherry-picked for things that support Irish studies while ignoring inconvenient facts that don't fit.

This was supported by some on the list, including some notable and well respected scholars in the field, but a couple of CR and CT on the list would have none of it. Which was sad. Perhaps i struck too close to the bone regarding their motivations.

Basically I don't think reconstructionism of any period is best served by imposing dogma, declaring certain subjects off limits, and regarding new historical or archaeological material as a threat.

Still reading that article. But its making me think, too. In particular the use of 1 August in the Irish mediaeval calendar.
Wow I just got throught reading that and the links it had. I never heard that view before(May eve being the New Year)...So know I have a question,I have also read that the Celts began their months on either the new moon or the Full moon,which was it?Do you have any links?

Kern

September 11th, 2004, 04:12 PM

Okay Okay I give...... :strike: You guys win...It does help to learn some Gaelic or other language.

Seren_

September 11th, 2004, 04:27 PM

I think it was adopted when Pope Gregory introduced the Gregorian calendar, to replace the Julian calendar. This was as late as 1582, but places like England didn't adopt it until as late as 1752, and it basically removed about 11 days from the year when it was introduced. The Julian calendar wasn't too in synch with the solar year, so there'd been a bit of drift, and the switch in calendars was meant to correct it. With the Gregorian calendar, the New Year was moved from the end of March - April to January. Several sources on the net say that this is where April Fool's day comes from, mixed in with a few other traditions.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 11th, 2004, 08:25 PM

Being in Ireland at the time probably made that easier :T

No, that was to separate the British that could be conquered from those that could not.

If you mean modern Scotland, though, then those south of the Antonine wall were conquered, at least briefly. (The Antonie Wall is in Scotland).

Right...that's what I thought I said, just in a different way. Maybe I wasn't being very clear. I was a bit grumpy that day. :shhhh:

I realize those south of the Antonine wall were conquered for a short time, but when the Romans couldn't keep control they later built Hadrian's wall.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 11th, 2004, 08:26 PM

Okay Okay I give...... :strike: You guys win...It does help to learn some Gaelic or other language.

What led you to that conclusion?

Kern

September 12th, 2004, 10:09 AM

What led you to that conclusion?
Well if we didnt know what certain words meant then we would not be able to figure out what they were talking about,like it that Celtic New Year article concerning the words samon and samhain,,I would have just thought they were the same words.

Nantonos

September 12th, 2004, 10:24 AM

Well if we didnt know what certain words meant then we would not be able to figure out what they were talking about,like it that Celtic New Year article concerning the words samon and samhain,,I would have just thought they were the same words.

Right. Etymology depends on knowing how languages evolved over time, not on 'it sounds the same'. It can be predicted fairly well what a word in an earlier language would turn into in a later one. Working withot the linguistic clues leads to false conclusions (like the mythical 'Sam Hain' deity invented by American Fundamentalists) or missing on important clues (like the origin of he 'sowens' cakes) - both from an inability to pronounce Samhain correctly.

It also helps to draw the conclusions from the data, not (as in the 19th century example) selecting the data to fit already established conclusions for a 'greater good' (such as French and German nationalist agendas from 1870 to 1918, which unfortunately colors a lot of earlier research)

Finally, it shows the importance of going back to the original sources and not relyingon the progressive manglings introduced by less expers summarizations over the years.

Lots to learn from that article. The point about the start of summer being the start of the year is fairly well made, also.

Kern

September 12th, 2004, 10:29 AM

Could some one start a Celtic/Recon/Druid Class? I am interested in learning more about the Celtic religion in general,not just Irish/Scottish/Welsh/Gallic or others but all of them.

Nantonos

September 12th, 2004, 10:44 AM

Could some one start a Celtic/Recon/Druid Class? I am interested in learning more about the Celtic religion in general,not just Irish/Scottish/Welsh/Gallic or others but all of them.

What would be in such a course? A short intro to each one? There is no 'Celtic religion'.

Kern

September 12th, 2004, 11:07 AM

What would be in such a course? A short intro to each one? There is no 'Celtic religion'.
Just the basics about each one and their similarities.Teach the things that was common among all of the different branches and the different dieties.

Kern

September 12th, 2004, 11:11 AM

I think Mòrag was trying to point out that by leaving the sites that give the Jan 31 date, you miss out on the "tradition" information in them. And that you were saying that you don't know whether the rest of the info on them is valid, since the new years date is wrong. Maybe phrasing it that way specificially will clarify it for you both.
Thanks!

Seren_

September 12th, 2004, 11:43 AM

Just the basics about each one and their similarities.Teach the things that was common among all of the different branches and the different dieties.

It's difficult to give a brief overview of "the basics", because history is always a complicated thing - especially to a recon. There is a Celtic Recon thread somewhere on this board, and there's a variety of links and book suggestions that you might want to look at (if you haven't already).

As cultures that come under the same generic umbrella of "Celtic", then yes there are similarities. But looking at the similarities you will miss out on the vast wealth of information and culture of each separate group. IMHO, that is. In a cultural context, identity is important, and increasingly these days I think a lot of people are moving away from the generic "Celtic" to more specific studies, like Scottish Reconstructionism (for example).

mothwench

September 12th, 2004, 12:25 PM

aldwyn: two books you might want to get (their on my wishlist, i haven't read them yet but they have excellent reviews):
Comparative Mythology by Jaan Puhvel
In Search of the Indo-Europeans by J.P. Mallory

and here's a website that you might find interesting: http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/therese.saintpaul/celtreli.html
(though i'm not sure about the accuracy of this one, i put it in website analysis a while ago and i didn't get alot of responses.)

Seren_

September 12th, 2004, 02:39 PM

and here's a website that you might find interesting: http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/therese.saintpaul/celtreli.html
(though i'm not sure about the accuracy of this one, i put it in website analysis a while ago and i didn't get alot of responses.)

I'd give it a bit of a Hmmmmm :hmmmmm: Anything that tends to mention sky fathers and earth mothers and such tends to be based on old research at best, and immediately makes me skeptical.

It's very comparative from a quick look I've taken, heavily biased towards a Classical interpretation of things.

Kern

September 13th, 2004, 07:38 PM

Kern

September 13th, 2004, 07:40 PM

It's difficult to give a brief overview of "the basics", because history is always a complicated thing - especially to a recon. There is a Celtic Recon thread somewhere on this board, and there's a variety of links and book suggestions that you might want to look at (if you haven't already).

As cultures that come under the same generic umbrella of "Celtic", then yes there are similarities. But looking at the similarities you will miss out on the vast wealth of information and culture of each separate group. IMHO, that is. In a cultural context, identity is important, and increasingly these days I think a lot of people are moving away from the generic "Celtic" to more specific studies, like Scottish Reconstructionism (for example).
Well at the time I am more interested in the Brythonic Celts and the Irish.

Seren_

September 13th, 2004, 07:46 PM

Well at the time I am more interested in the Brythonic Celts and the Irish.

Well...there's a start. :D Why don't you start a thread with your specific questions about the two?

Kern

September 13th, 2004, 08:02 PM

Well...there's a start. :D Why don't you start a thread with your specific questions about the two?
Good Idea! :spinner:

Bix

September 28th, 2004, 12:02 PM

Thank you so much for this post! I've been looking around the internet forever to find some valid information about Scottish folklore and religion. My mother's side of my family is Scottish and I've always been fascinated with the place. ^.^

mucgwyrt

September 29th, 2004, 03:43 AM

Hey morag, how come you've got 10 pages and my anglo-saxon recon has about 3? :confused: :flamer:

Nantonos

September 29th, 2004, 05:15 AM

Hey morag, how come you've got 10 pages and my anglo-saxon recon has about 3? :confused: :flamer:

Because I complained more about inaccurate details on hers. :halohead:

mucgwyrt

September 29th, 2004, 05:27 AM

Because I complained more about inaccurate details on hers. :halohead:
:hehehehe:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 29th, 2004, 06:12 AM

Because I complained more about inaccurate details on hers. :halohead:

And we had to take a bit to explain to Aldwyn why exactly one needed to learn the language. But he finally got it. ;)

BTW, I still stand by my I wasn't being inaccurate...you were just reading wrong. :lol:

Nantonos

September 29th, 2004, 06:14 AM

And we had to take a bit to explain to Aldwyn why exactly one needed to learn the language. But he finally got it. ;)

Although where that leaves me, with only a partial language to learn, is not clear. I am on several Gaulish lists, but its still had to actually construct a sentence.

There was a statement made that learning a modern descendant of the relevant language was also a benefit, though I found that unconvincing. If true though Mach a is all set :)

mucgwyrt

September 29th, 2004, 06:18 AM

Although where that leaves me, with only a partial language to learn, is not clear. I am on several Gaulish lists, but its still had to actually construct a sentence.

There was a statement made that learning a modern descendant of the relevant language was also a benefit, though I found that unconvincing. If true though Mach a is all set :)
:hehehehe: Go me ;)

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 29th, 2004, 06:34 AM

Nantonos

September 29th, 2004, 06:48 AM

Well of course it only works if it is actually possible. I'm sure there are some Etruscan Recons out there who have the same problem.

Its semi possible. Its tantalizingly possible. Gaulish now has an 800 word dictionary and a substantial grammar.

mucgwyrt

September 29th, 2004, 06:50 AM

Its semi possible. Its tantalizingly possible. Gaulish now has an 800 word dictionary and a substantial grammar.
But surely that's horrendously difficult (inaccurate?) - I mean, there must have been dozens (hundreds?) of different dialects! :huh:

Nantonos

September 29th, 2004, 07:00 AM

But surely that's horrendously difficult (inaccurate?) - I mean, there must have been dozens (hundreds?) of different dialects! :huh:

Why do you say that?

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 29th, 2004, 07:44 AM

Its semi possible. Its tantalizingly possible. Gaulish now has an 800 word dictionary and a substantial grammar.

Is it really up to that much now? Wow. The one thing I find really interesting about Gaulish is the sentence structure is different than that of Gaelic. In Gaelic you have Verb Subject Object and from what I've read about Gaulish it seems to be that it was set up as Subject Verb Object.

mucgwyrt

September 29th, 2004, 08:13 AM

Why do you say that?
Because modern languages do, now. Why, am I wrong?

Nantonos

September 29th, 2004, 11:04 AM

Is it really up to that much now? Wow.

Yes. There have ben a great many advances in the last 10 years. Thesecond edition of the Gaulis dictiorary was published only three years after the first.

Delamarre, X. (2001). Dictionaire de la Langue Gauloise. Paris, Editions Errance.

Delamarre, X. (2004). Dictionaire de la Langue Gauloise. Paris, Editions Errance, second edition.

The one thing I find really interesting about Gaulish is the sentence structure is different than that of Gaelic. In Gaelic you have Verb Subject Object and from what I've read about Gaulish it seems to be that it was set up as Subject Verb Object.

Yes. Same as Latin and same as proto-Germanic, IIRC. In other words, its closer to the Indo-European root languages and further away from the mediaeval languages.

Edited to add

And here is a photo of an original Gaulish inscription (th e one my name comes from)
http://www.mysticwicks.com/photoalbum/displayimage.php?album=259&pos=4

Nantonos

September 29th, 2004, 11:05 AM

Because modern languages do, now. Why, am I wrong?
People have tried to detect dialectical differences in Gaulish, or in Gallo-Brittonic. So far its not possible to reliably isolate any geographical variations from the written record.

Seren_

September 29th, 2004, 01:07 PM

People have tried to detect dialectical differences in Gaulish, or in Gallo-Brittonic. So far its not possible to reliably isolate any geographical variations from the written record.

I was told at Uni that there is evidence for P and Q Celtic dialects in the Gaulish labguage. Is that wrong/out of date now?

Nantonos

September 29th, 2004, 01:20 PM

I was told at Uni that there is evidence for P and Q Celtic dialects in the Gaulish labguage. Is that wrong/out of date now?

Yes.

Oh, you wanted more details?

Remember that P and Q Celtic does not mean that the languages didn't contain the other sound. It means that the Indo-European *kw became Q in one branch and P in the other branch. (To take a related example, just because Gaulish Maponos became Welsh Mabon, we don't call Welsh a B-Celtic language).

At one point, people thought that names such as equoranda in Gaulish meant that it preserved a Q Celtic form as well as a p celtic form (the Q Celtic is sometimes thought to be older and more archaiic. Indeed, people started making ill-founded speculation that the Druids spoke an older Q cCeltic languae and the common people a P Celtic one, o the basis of no evidence other then wishful thinking and a desire to establish a claim of great antiquity for Irish druidry.

However, it now seems much more likely that the Q in some Gaulish words stands for a different sound, and does not derive from pIE *kw at all.

Equoranda is discussed on pp. 164-165 of Delmarre, 2nd edition, op. cit. and equos, the name of the ninth month, on p.165 as well.

Sorry Mòrag this is straying a bit far from Scottish Reconstructionism.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 29th, 2004, 01:35 PM

Yes.

Oh, you wanted more details?

Remember that P and Q Celtic does not mean that the languages didn't contain the other sound. It means that the Indo-European *kw became Q in one branch and P in the other branch. (To take a related example, just because Gaulish Maponos became Welsh Mabon, we don't call Welsh a B-Celtic language).

At one point, people thought that names such as equoranda in Gaulish meant that it preserved a Q Celtic form as well as a p celtic form (the Q Celtic is sometimes thought to be older and more archaiic. Indeed, people started making ill-founded speculation that the Druids spoke an older Q cCeltic languae and the common people a P Celtic one, o the basis of no evidence other then wishful thinking and a desire to establish a claim of great antiquity for Irish druidry.

However, it now seems much more likely that the Q in some Gaulish words stands for a different sound, and does not derive from pIE *kw at all.

Equoranda is discussed on pp. 164-165 of Delmarre, 2nd edition, op. cit. and equos, the name of the ninth month, on p.165 as well.

Sorry Mòrag this is straying a bit far from Scottish Reconstructionism.

That's okay. Its fascinating. I have no problem at all with the turn of discussion.

Nantonos

September 29th, 2004, 05:10 PM

Gaulish is recorded many centuries earlier than our first records of the Insular languages. Since Proto-Celtic is widely thought to have had SOV order, it is highly possible, and even likely, that VSO order had not yet developed in the Insular languages at the time when Gaulish was recorded. (Note that our earliest records of Irish show some evidence of SOV order.) It is also possible that Gaulish itself would have developed VSO order if it had survived until the time when our records of Insular Celtic begin. Note that, while Gaulish is predominately SVO, it exhibits VSO order in certain constructions. Very likely these constructions represent the first steps in the process which led eventually to the introduction of VSO order in the Insular languages, many centuries later.
http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-1876.html

More on word order in Celtic languages.

Seren_

September 29th, 2004, 05:17 PM

Thanks Nantonos (again). You know, it never even occurred to me that there was a link between Ps and Qs and old and new Celtic languages in Gaul. It's not something I've really ever studied.

Rockprincess

September 29th, 2004, 05:17 PM

Ramplem Nantonos I
I ramplem Nantonos
I Nantonos ramplem

:stooges:

Seren_

September 29th, 2004, 05:18 PM

Ramplem Nantonos I
I ramplem Nantonos
I Nantonos ramplem

:stooges:

:lol:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

September 29th, 2004, 05:21 PM

Ramplem Nantonos I
I ramplem Nantonos
I Nantonos ramplem

:stooges:

I was amusingly enough was thinking something along the same lines and was just going to post it. Guess you beat me to it. _pounce_

Rockprincess

September 29th, 2004, 05:23 PM

You can help me anyway, darling. Great minds, and all that :D

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

October 1st, 2004, 09:02 AM

I'm guessing its a Scots (as in Scots, not Gaelic...) corruption...I was actually hoping to ask you about it! I will dig out my Scottish Folklore book and post anything info I find on your Scottish thread, seeing as it's more appropriate there. I think there might be some stuff about the Cailleach as well.

Seren, I looked it up in my handy-dandy Scots dictionary. Yeel is a dialectal spelling in the NE of Yuil, which of course means Christmas. And you were correct that carlin is indeed Scots for old woman. So that would mean Yeel Carlin translates as something along the lines of Old Woman of Christmas.

Seren_

October 1st, 2004, 09:37 AM

More on the Cailleach (which you probably already know, Morag :D, but I found this interesting):

Tigh na Cailliche, which is looked after by the Killin Heritage Society

"This consists of a miniature dry-stone shrine, thatched in rushes, in which are housed three large water-worn stones which have been shaped into crudely anthropomorphic form. The largest of these is known as the Cailleach, 'hag', 'old woman' or 'goddess'. The second largest is traditionally known as the Bodach, 'old man', 'husband'. The third and smallest stone is the Nighean, 'daughter', or 'girl'." Folklore of the Scottish Highlands, Anne Ross

And:

Harvest time:

In Glen Lyon the last sheaf was called A' Mhaighdean and dressed like a young girl if the harvest was a good one; if bad, it was called the Cailleach, 'Hag', and dressed like an old woman...In the Hebrides and other areas, the last sheaf had rather sinister connotations. It was used as a dire insult to the man who was last in cutting his corn...A man who had cut his own Cailleach or Gobhar Bhacach ['Lame Goat', another name for the last sheaf] could throw it into the field of the farmer who was still working his grain. It was considered very unlucky to be the last person in the community to finish the harvest. Anyone receiving the last sheaf in this manner regarded it as a bad omen, because it was widely believed that he would have to support an actual Cailleach throughout the winter.

No one wanted to get the last sheaf:

Loss of cattle, loss on account of death and accident
Will befall the luckless one of the Gobhar Bhacach.

In Argyll, Uist and parts of Perthshire, the Cailleach had to be dropped casually, so that the person dropping it wouldn't get caught or noticed...If they did, then several punishments could be meted out to them - physical violence on one end of the scale, or bearradh eoin is amadain air - '"a clipping of bird and of a fool on him." - The guy would have his hair and beard shaved off.

So does anyone have anymore?

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

October 1st, 2004, 09:52 AM

I did actually know that already, but thanks for posting it. I do have some more notes you might be interested in, but they're at home. Will look into them this weekend.

mucgwyrt

October 1st, 2004, 09:57 AM

Morag, of the two tartans you posted, which do you reconstruct?

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

October 1st, 2004, 09:59 AM

Morag, of the two tartans you posted, which do you reconstruct?

While interested in both I tend to focus more on the beliefs of the Hebrides, so it would be the MacDonald tartan...hence my surname here, which is the Gaelic for of MacDonald.

mucgwyrt

October 1st, 2004, 10:02 AM

:doh2:

I quite like my tartan - nice colours :smile:

Seren_

October 1st, 2004, 10:06 AM

I did actually know that already, but thanks for posting it. I do have some more notes you might be interested in, but they're at home. Will look into them this weekend.

Yes please. :fpoke:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

October 1st, 2004, 10:09 AM

I'll put that on my to do list just for you. :smile:

I say just for you, but the Cailleach as a goddess fascinates me. However it is much more difficult to find good info about her as oppossed to Brighde.

mothwench

October 7th, 2004, 09:56 AM

More on the Cailleach (which you probably already know, Morag :D, but I found this interesting):

And:

No one wanted to get the last sheaf:

Loss of cattle, loss on account of death and accident
Will befall the luckless one of the Gobhar Bhacach.

In Argyll, Uist and parts of Perthshire, the Cailleach had to be dropped casually, so that the person dropping it wouldn't get caught or noticed...If they did, then several punishments could be meted out to them - physical violence on one end of the scale, or bearradh eoin is amadain air - '"a clipping of bird and of a fool on him." - The guy would have his hair and beard shaved off.

So does anyone have anymore?

is the last sheaf tied into samhain (samhuinn? wasn't sure about the spelling. :bigredblu )
in any way? cause i found an amazing similarity with the folklore of the norse winternights, also involving the last sheaf. i'll write about it on nantonos's celtic-germanic recon thread. :smile:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

October 7th, 2004, 10:42 AM

is the last sheaf tied into samhain (samhuinn? wasn't sure about the spelling. :bigredblu )
in any way? cause i found an amazing similarity with the folklore of the norse winternights, also involving the last sheaf. i'll write about it on nantonos's celtic-germanic recon thread. :smile:

Not that I'm aware of mothwench. Although to be honest I did find a reference that says if the last sheaf was cut before Samhain it was known as the time maiden and if after it was the cailleach. Here's the excerpt:

In Scotland the last sheaf if cut before Hailowm~s is called time maiden, and the youngest girl in the harvest-field is given time privilege of cutting it. If the reaping finishes after Hallowmas the last corn cut is called the Cailleach (old woman). In some parts of Scotland this last sheaf is kept till Christmaf morning and then divided among the cattle to make them thrive all the year round, or is kept till the first mare foals and is then given to her as her first food.

I found that info here: http://61.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HARVEST.htm. Unfortunately there are no sources listed. ~grumbles~

In case you're interested here is an article about the Cailleach and it explains a bit of the rituals and folklore associated with her, including the cutting of the last sheaf. It includes sources so you can look into it more if you want. http://www.shadowdrake.com/celtic/cailleach.html

Here's another article that deals with harvest traditions across the world. http://www.cyberwitch.com/Wychwood/Temple/autumn.htm. This one also has no sources listed.

Seren_

October 7th, 2004, 12:05 PM

mothwench

October 7th, 2004, 02:05 PM

In case you're interested here is an article about the Cailleach and it explains a bit of the rituals and folklore associated with her, including the cutting of the last sheaf. It includes sources so you can look into it more if you want. http://www.shadowdrake.com/celtic/cailleach.html
:smile: i've seen that article, i've got the whole shadowdrake page bookmarked. it's a good site, the more articles i read, the more i love it. :sunny:

Here's another article that deals with harvest traditions across the world. http://www.cyberwitch.com/Wychwood/Temple/autumn.htm. This one also has no sources listed.
thanks :floating:

mothwench

October 7th, 2004, 02:07 PM

I don't think so either. (Btw, Samhain=Irish gaelic, Samhuinn=Scots Gaelic).

I had a quick look in the Highland Folklore book and there's nothing specific mentioned. In Scotland, the harvest was a competition to see who could finish first - or not be the last - and I think it would have been well over by Samhain - by this time in most of Scotland it would have been too cold and wet and the crops would have been ruined. I know in Ireland there are mentions of the puca riding out at Samhain, tainting any crops left in the field; they'd be deemed unfit for human consumption after the puca had them.
hmmm, makes sense, yeah it would be too cold for wheat and barley harvesting. interesting about the puca. do you think he was a personification of frost, then? :kooky:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

October 7th, 2004, 02:12 PM

mothwench

October 7th, 2004, 02:22 PM

There is a similar idea in Scotland about the any crops and fruits/berries being left in the ground after Samhuinn (sorry for confusing you about the spelling mothy, I prefer to use the Scots Gaelic spelling)
so do i! erm, i mean i would like to, seeing as i have ties with scotland rather than with ireland. i just wasn't sure of the spelling, which is why i did the brackets. :bigredblu
:gagged: sorry, i interupted you. ;)
belonging to the dark earth spirits/gods, more specifically the Fomorians. (remember the Scots Gaelic people emigrated from Ireland so they are going to share much of the same folklore and beliefs as the Irish).
interesting. :D sounds like the svartalfr. :bat: have those dark earth spirits/gods got anything to do with the unseely court?

Seren_

October 7th, 2004, 02:41 PM

There is a similar idea in Scotland about the any crops and fruits/berries being left in the ground after Samhuinn (sorry for confusing you about the spelling mothy, I prefer to use the Scots Gaelic spelling) belonging to the dark earth spirits/gods, more specifically the Fomorians. (remember the Scots Gaelic people emigrated from Ireland so they are going to share much of the same folklore and beliefs as the Irish).

Now that's interesting. I thought there might be, but couldn't find anything definite...do you have any links to hand about that? Actually, would it be a safe bet to look around the sites you've already posted info with the Cailleach and save you the trouble?

interesting about the puca. do you think he was a personification of frost, then?

I don't think so...In England, we have Jack Frost, which I think extends to other places like Scotland, Wales and Ireland as well...but as far as I know, there's no specific Samhain associations with him; he just makes the pretty frost patterns on our windows, whenever frost happens.

And the higher parts of Britain (especially Wales and Scotland - more so Scotland) have already had frosts this year, and usually before Samhain anyway. I've seen a few places mention Samhain being associated with the idea of the "first frosts" but I really don't think it's accurate. I don't know about the weather in Ireland, but by this time the Highlands in particular, where Samhuinn traditions are a lot better preserved than other "Celticy" parts of Scotland, don't seem to have any emphasis on frost at all.

The puca is often described as being a horse or dog-like creature (dark or black with red eyes). It appears to be quite friendly at first, if you happen to encounter one, but they mostly turn out to be very malevolent. Apparently, some farmers would leave a crop or two for the puca, so they'd run rampant through the field instead of the village at Samhain...I believe the Welsh have a similar kind of spirit - the bwca. It is interesting that they have horsey associations, when the horse plays a prominent part in these agricultural/harvest traditions...There must be something in that (*ahem, Ceffyl?*). They might also appear as bull or eagle type creatures, but either way have a reputation for ruining crops, carrying off livestock and so forth.

I know in both Scotland and Ireland (and Wales) that there is a heavy emphasis towards deterring the fae folk at Samhain time, who are generally thought to cause havoc. Along with witches :nyah:

In the more Norse influenced parts of Scotland like the Orkneys and Hebrides, I believe they have folklore more associated with trows/trolls than the more Celtic/Irish fae. But the premise is the same.

Seren_

October 7th, 2004, 02:46 PM

interesting. :D sounds like the svartalfr. :bat: have those dark earth spirits/gods got anything to do with the unseely court?

I find these comparisons fascinating, the more everyone talks about it all...Could you expand on what the svartalfr are (here, or on another thread if it's more appropriate...)?

mothwench

October 7th, 2004, 02:55 PM

thanks ever so much seren! :floating: i think i'll look up more about the puca.

mothwench

October 7th, 2004, 02:57 PM

I find these comparisons fascinating, the more everyone talks about it all...Could you expand on what the svartalfr are (here, or on another thread if it's more appropriate...)?
okay, i'll gather up some info and post a thread about the svartalfr in the heathenry forum. (circle of teaching) :smile:

Seren_

October 7th, 2004, 03:08 PM

Mothwench,

Look forward to it. Thanks :D But don't go to too much trouble!

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

October 7th, 2004, 03:37 PM

so do i! erm, i mean i would like to, seeing as i have ties with scotland rather than with ireland. i just wasn't sure of the spelling, which is why i did the brackets. :bigredblu
:gagged: sorry, i interupted you. ;)

interesting. :D sounds like the svartalfr. :bat: have those dark earth spirits/gods got anything to do with the unseely court?

I've never heard of anyone comparing the Fomorians and the Unseelie Court, so my instint is to say no. However, it is entirely possible that this is what is meant. They never name the Fomorians directly, so it very well could be the Unseelie Court.

Actually I've never really heard anyone mention the Fomorians at all in relation to Scotland. However they are a major part of Irish mythology, and as Irish and Scottish myth are so intwined coming from the same source it would make sense to consider them together.

The Fomorians, in myth, were the first people settled in Ireland before all of the successive invasions of the Partholonians, Nemeds, Fir Bolg, Tuatha de Danann and Milesians. Excepting the Milesians all of these groups had to deal with the Fomorians, either warring or treating with them. There is the theory that the Fomorians were either the aboriginal, pre-Celtic people who existed in Ireland before the Celts moved in or the gods of these people. They are believed to be the opposite of the Tuatha de Dannan, dark gods/beings of the earth/sea. In fact, it is they who are said to have given up the secrets of the land to the Tuatha de Dannan, teaching them the skills of agriculture, following the Second Battle of Mag Tuired (sp?).

Now while this is distinctly Irish myth, we don't really seem to have comparable myths, in Scottish folklore. But I do think it's fair to say, that the Scotti people who founded the Dal Riadan kingdom in Scotland after moving from the northeast of Ireland, they would have carried these same tales and beliefs with them.

It is possible that the Fomorians later became the Unseelie Court. It is something to ponder certainly, and I'll have to look into the comparisons more.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

October 7th, 2004, 03:56 PM

Seren, that info isn't in any of the links I posted. It's actually in one of my books back home. I will try to get to it tonight but things are really hectic at home (Gram in hospital, see GW thread for more info) so I won't promise that I have time.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

October 7th, 2004, 03:59 PM

I meant to post this earlier too. I found it in my ramblings around the web looking for stuff on the Cailleach. It deals with Hebridean folklore regarding the goddess.

On the remote Hebridean island of Tiree, in harvest, there was a struggle to escape from being the last done with the shearing, and when tillage in common existed, instances were known of a ridge being left unshorn (no person would claim it) because of it being behind the rest. The fear entertained was that of having the ‘famine of the farm’ (gort a bhaile), in the shape of an imaginary old woman (cailleach), to feed till next harvest.

Much emulation and amusement arose from the fear of this old woman. The first done made a doll of some blades of corn, which was called the ‘old wife,’ and sent it to his nearest neighbour. He in turn, when ready, passed it to another still less expeditious, and the person it last remained with had ‘the old woman’ to keep for that year.”

*source: http://www.fife.50megs.com/the-old-wife.htm

And this is one of the most informative articles I've read online about her, can't believe I forgot to post it earlier: http://www.caerclud.vscotland.org.uk/cailleach.html

This article is also pretty good, though it doesn't appear to have any new info. http://www.echoedvoices.org/Nov2001/NovGoddess.html

The reason why I posted is because it's the only other place that I've been able to find mention of a festival/holiday on April 25 associated with the Cailleach. The Caer Clud article makes mention of this festival, calling it Là na Caillich. The second of the two gives it the same date, but names it Latha na Cailleach. I'm going to try to do some more digging and see what I can find.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

October 7th, 2004, 04:11 PM

Seren_

October 7th, 2004, 04:21 PM

Also, I told Nantonos that I would try to find my source that suggests that the Cailleach in Ireland may be younger than the Cailleach of Scotland.

That source is Donald MacKenzie's Scottish Folklore and Folklife.

I feel my credit card is about to get a good sponking (as a French friend of mine once put it).

I'm really sorry to hear about your family strife and such, I hope your Gram's OK. And while I doubt that I can do anything, you're in my thoughts. If you need a vent or anything, then feel free to PM me, or whatever.

mothwench

October 7th, 2004, 04:45 PM

Mothwench,

Look forward to it. Thanks :D But don't go to too much trouble!
i'm still putting it together cause i want to look through some books, i don't think i'll get it done tonight, so here's a link for the meantime. :)
http://www.thetroth.org/resources/ourtroth/alf.html

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

October 7th, 2004, 06:20 PM

I feel my credit card is about to get a good sponking (as a French friend of mine once put it).

I'm really sorry to hear about your family strife and such, I hope your Gram's OK. And while I doubt that I can do anything, you're in my thoughts. If you need a vent or anything, then feel free to PM me, or whatever.

Good luck finding it. If you do, please let me know where. I've only seen excerpts and it used as reference. I know it was published in 1935 but that's about it.

Seren_

October 7th, 2004, 07:00 PM

Grrrr. No sponking of credit card. I've managed to find a copy of it at my old Uni. I'm probably going back to Glasgow at the new year-ish, so if there's anything I can photocopy and send on, let me know. Provided it's open at that time...

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

October 7th, 2004, 07:45 PM

~wistfully, dreamy look~ The whole library?

Nantonos

October 8th, 2004, 07:02 PM

Also, I told Nantonos that I would try to find my source that suggests that the Cailleach in Ireland may be younger than the Cailleach of Scotland.

That source is Donald MacKenzie's Scottish Folklore and Folklife.

Thanks, Mòrag.

Incidentally the reading list on the Scottish Studies course at the University of Edinburgh might be interesting:
http://www.cpa.ed.ac.uk/prosp/undergrad2002/023_ScottishStudies.html

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

October 8th, 2004, 09:40 PM

Thanks, looks good.

Nantonos

October 17th, 2004, 11:54 PM

Came across this whilegetting books on another (historical) subject... wanted to pass it on before I forgot. The link will offer you a choice of US or UK site, pick the one that is appropriate in terms of postage.

Picts, Gaels and Scots
by Sally M Foster
http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/13178
From the 5th to the 10th century AD, there were five tribal groups that inhabited Scotland; by the early 11th century, four of these had united to form the origins of today's Scotland (the Picts, Gaels, Britons and Angles). This book outlines who these groups were, how and why they united and describes the sources on which various assumptions are made. Sally Foster examines in turn aspects of settlement, drawing on recent archaeological evidence and research. The fact that this book has been extensively revised and updated eight years after the original was published demonstrates that it is still an important introduction to early medieval Scotland. 128p, lots of b/w and col pls and figs (Batsford 1996, new edn 2004)
ISBN 0713488743. Paperback. Price GB £14.99

omar

November 4th, 2004, 07:21 AM

I saw on the news Scotland is going to " pardon" the exicuted witches. Pardon the dead?

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

November 4th, 2004, 08:02 AM

Omar, I've heard about this too. But it does happen all the time. They did that in Salem a couple years ago too.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 4th, 2005, 08:59 AM

**bump**

Just thought I'd bump this. I'm thinking of adding more to this thread with some info on some of the traditional customs and rites.

mucgwyrt

August 4th, 2005, 09:15 AM

Ever thought of starting Morag's Scottish Recon Information website? :)

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 4th, 2005, 09:21 AM

Ever thought of starting Morag's Scottish Recon Information website? :)

Nope...I don't know enough to do that. There are many many people out there who are far more knowledgeable than I am and have put together much better websites than I could.

mucgwyrt

August 4th, 2005, 09:29 AM

Maaaaybe.......... but nobody actually has... :whistle:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 4th, 2005, 09:37 AM

Sure there are. I've found plenty of good sites with the info. Clannada na Gadelica has Traditionalist info up about both the Irish and Scots Gaels, and I linked a couple of GT tuath and clanna in my links section that also have the info. You can get a lot of the info from IMBAS as well. So :nyah:

But I'll think about it. There happy?

mucgwyrt

August 4th, 2005, 09:38 AM

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 4th, 2005, 09:45 AM

You're so difficult sometimes!

mucgwyrt

August 4th, 2005, 10:11 AM

:halohead:

Seren_

August 4th, 2005, 11:42 AM

**bump**

Just thought I'd bump this. I'm thinking of adding more to this thread with some info on some of the traditional customs and rites.

:fpoke: Cool. I look forward to it :D

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 4th, 2005, 12:38 PM

I'm thinking I'm going to try and cover stuff like saining (which I understand is Christian), smooring the hearth, Feast Day traditions, fairy lore, and Frith and other forms of Second Sight. I might also get a little into what I do on a daily basis, though I'm not sure about that, because it's very personal for me.

mucgwyrt

August 4th, 2005, 01:25 PM

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 5th, 2005, 07:49 AM

Alright already. But I don't have any webspace and I'm not such a fabulous webdesigner as you are. So if you're going to be so insistent on this webspace issue, you're going to have to help me out on creating it. So there! :razz:

mucgwyrt

August 5th, 2005, 10:49 AM

OK :halohead:

CromanMacNessa

August 15th, 2005, 02:09 AM

Thanks for the clarification. My point in return is that those particular Scots were not the entirety of Scottish peoples and also that, at the time they invaded Scotland, they were Christian not Pagan.

/|\
Su-butâ tei, Nantone, eti-c su-butâ ollobo.

Well, not exactly. The Senchus Fer nAlbann claims that there were Dál Riata migrating from northeastern Ireland into western Alba for ten generations before the death of Erc in circa AD 498, and what you suggest was an invasion was really nothing more than three of Erc's sons who weren't happy with the decision to give the office of Rí to their uncle (but that was based on tanistry), and so left Ireland and went to live among their people in Alba in circa AD 500. Ten generations before this, the Dál Riata may or may not have been "Christian" (officially), but whether the Tuath was regarded as Christian or not by that time, it's not necessarily the case that every member of the Tuath was even partially converted to Christianity. The survival of Heathen Tradition even to this day in the Gàidhealtachd suggests, in fact, that noone was forced to convert (just as there is no record that anyone anywhere else in Ireland was forced to convert).

CromanMacNessa

August 15th, 2005, 03:18 AM

I am reading it now; it makes some good points. I can mention a related incident. On a list, people were discussing the Coligny calendar. Some (primarily Irish-focussed) scholars were saying that the month 'Samonios' (which is known to mean 'Summer month' in Gaulish) had to be Samhain and had to be November because that is the way it was in the later Irish calendar (nince centuries later).

/|\
Nantone,

I don't think that "Samonios" is known to mean "Summer month" at all. Xavier Delamarre, in Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, says that both Gaulish "Samoni(o)s" and Old Irish "Samain" or "Samuin" are more likely to mean "assembly, reunion, feast, gathering," and asserts that the derivation of Gaelic "Samhuinn," Irish "Samhain," and Old Irish "Samain, Samuin" from "samh" + "fhuinn" (summer + end) is a folk-etymology. Monsieur Delamarre provides several cognate words in other I-E languages to back up his claim. See DLG (first edition, 2001), pp. 226-227. With all due respect to the esteemed Chris Gwinn, I disagree with his assessment of the Coligny Calendar and his interpretations of its month names.

CromanMacNessa

August 15th, 2005, 03:31 AM

Is it really up to that much now? Wow. The one thing I find really interesting about Gaulish is the sentence structure is different than that of Gaelic. In Gaelic you have Verb Subject Object and from what I've read about Gaulish it seems to be that it was set up as Subject Verb Object.

/|\
a Mhòrag,

Late Gaulish was SVO. Earlier Gaulish was SOV.

CromanMacNessa

August 15th, 2005, 03:41 AM

More on the Cailleach (which you probably already know, Morag :D, but I found this interesting):

So does anyone have anymore?

/|\
Seren_ agus a h-uile duine,

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but the material in this text should be of interest:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/tsm/index.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/tsm/index.htm)

The first two chapters will provide more information on the Cailleach Bheur.

Actually I've never really heard anyone mention the Fomorians at all in relation to Scotland.

The Fomhòir are part of Scottish Tradition, too, but not identical to the Fomhóraig in Irish Tradition. They are also involved in the text linked above.

mothwench

August 15th, 2005, 05:51 AM

/|\
Nantone,

I don't think that "Samonios" is known to mean "Summer month" at all. Xavier Delamarre, in Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, says that both Gaulish "Samoni(o)s" and Old Irish "Samain" or "Samuin" are more likely to mean "assembly, reunion, feast, gathering," and asserts that the derivation of Gaelic "Samhuinn," Irish "Samhain," and Old Irish "Samain, Samuin" from "samh" + "fhuinn" (summer + end) is a folk-etymology. Monsieur Delamarre provides several cognate words in other I-E languages to back up his claim. See DLG (first edition, 2001), pp. 226-227. With all due respect to the esteemed Chris Gwinn, I disagree with his assessment of the Coligny Calendar and his interpretations of its month names.
this would explain quite alot of mysteries... i so hope it's true.
where can i find info on this chris gwinn fellow? all the google searches i do sound very promising but each link just goes to this increadibly annoying search engine called christophergwinn.com...

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 15th, 2005, 08:41 AM

/|\
Nantone,

I don't think that "Samonios" is known to mean "Summer month" at all. Xavier Delamarre, in Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, says that both Gaulish "Samoni(o)s" and Old Irish "Samain" or "Samuin" are more likely to mean "assembly, reunion, feast, gathering," and asserts that the derivation of Gaelic "Samhuinn," Irish "Samhain," and Old Irish "Samain, Samuin" from "samh" + "fhuinn" (summer + end) is a folk-etymology. Monsieur Delamarre provides several cognate words in other I-E languages to back up his claim. See DLG (first edition, 2001), pp. 226-227. With all due respect to the esteemed Chris Gwinn, I disagree with his assessment of the Coligny Calendar and his interpretations of its month names.

Hmmm, very interesting. I hadn't heard this. I really wish I could read French well enough (I can to an extent, just takes me a long time, and think I'd have trouble with some of the words I'd find in more scholarly rescources) to read the Dictionnaire de la Langue Gaulois. :sadman:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 15th, 2005, 08:43 AM

/|\
Seren_ agus a h-uile duine,

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but the material in this text should be of interest:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/tsm/index.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/tsm/index.htm)

The first two chapters will provide more information on the Cailleach Bheur.

The Fomhòir are part of Scottish Tradition, too, but not identical to the Fomhóraig in Irish Tradition. They are also involved in the text linked above.

Thank you for the link, I've always been fascinated by the Cailleach - both in Irish and Scottish traditions. And I'll be glad to read about the Fomhòir as they appear in Scots Gaelic mytholgy. It's always so rough trying to find good stuff on Scots Gaelic mythology/folkore as opposed to the more popular Irish.

CromanMacNessa

August 15th, 2005, 02:13 PM

this would explain quite alot of mysteries... i so hope it's true.

/|\
Mothwench agus a h-uile duine,

It's possible that Delamarre's second edition (2004) of DLG takes a different position, but the statements in the first edition (2001) should still be considered. The explanation of Samonios/Samain/Samuin as "assembly, reunion, gathering, feast" makes a lot of sense to me, as I always thought that "Samuin" being derived from "summer" + "end" was a bit odd, coming at the end of Autumn as it does.

where can i find info on this chris gwinn fellow? all the google searches i do sound very promising but each link just goes to this increadibly annoying search engine called christophergwinn.com...

Well, that page you get taken to used to be a nice website by the man himself, but he apparently let the domain name go and someone else apparently bought it. You might try the Internet Archive and see if they ever saved any version(s) of his site. Otherwise, he runs some very scholarly e-lists on Yahoo, including Continental Celtic, Brittonica, and Neo-Brittonica, and he's also a subscriber to one of my linguistic e-lists on Yahoo, called Celtica (shameless plug), though none of these is as active as the Continental Celtic list (but it itself isn't as active as the Old Irish List, not on Yahoo, where Chris is also a subscriber). I recommend any and all of these lists for learning more about Celtic languages and linguistics (but be warned, these are scholarly lists, and won't put up with any BS --- this is a disclaimer added for the benefit of any Neo-Pagans and New Agers who find this post, because I will not be blamed for such persons making fools of themselves on such lists).

Seren_

August 15th, 2005, 04:59 PM

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 15th, 2005, 07:36 PM

Croman, I just realized what book it was you linked to. That's on my list of must buy books. I wasn't aware it was available on Sacred Texts. I'll still want to buy it just because I don't like reading whole books online, but at least I'll be able to start on it.

mucgwyrt

August 16th, 2005, 03:26 AM

/|\
Mothwench agus a h-uile duine,

It's possible that Delamarre's second edition (2004) of DLG takes a different position, but the statements in the first edition (2001) should still be considered. The explanation of Samonios/Samain/Samuin as "assembly, reunion, gathering, feast" makes a lot of sense to me, as I always thought that "Samuin" being derived from "summer" + "end" was a bit odd, coming at the end of Autumn as it does.

But they only recognised Summer and Winter, like the Saxons, didn't they?

CromanMacNessa

August 16th, 2005, 06:00 AM

But they only recognised Summer and Winter, like the Saxons, didn't they?

Madainn mhath dhuit, Mucgwyrt.

Did they? I've seen this suggested occasionally, but I don't know what the basis of the suggestion is. The existence of four Féisean suggests an awareness of four seasons (and yes, I've also seen suggestions that Samuin and Beltaine were the "original two" Féisean, but again, I have no idea where this suggestion comes from, and one of these suggestions is likely to be based, in part at least, on the other, so I would like to avoid circular reasoning here).

It seems to me that any agricultural and/or pastoral people would recognise four seasons (at least). To go back to the pre-Celtic inhabitants of western Europe for examples, if we look at the Brug na Bóinde (Newgrange), it is oriented toward the Sunrise on Midwinter, whilst Cnobga (Knowth) and Dubad (Dowth) are oriented to the Equinoxes (and these are all in the same area). Of course there are other examples that are oriented to the Sunrise on Midsummer. It would seem that these pre-Celtic people recognised four seasons, and if, as I believe, the religion commonly called "Druidism" was the result of a mingling of the cultures of the incoming Celts and the previous inhabitants of western Europe, one would expect this view to have been passed down into Celtic Heathen religion. It also hardly seems likely that a supposedly more "primitive" culture (the pre-IE peoples of western Europe) would have known of four seasons, whilst a supposedly more "advanced" culture (the incoming IE Celtic peoples) would not have "developed" such a notion yet. I could be wrong about that, of course.

At any rate, Delamarre says: "Le sens initial du v.irl. samain semble avoir été 'assemblée' (le mot veut dire 'essaim' à propos des abeilles), donc en l' occurrence 'assemblée, réunion avec les morts et l' Au-delà' ; on compare alors avec le skr. sámanam 'assemblée, réunion, fête', goth. samana, v.norr. saman 'ensemble', racine i.e. *sem-, som-, sm- 'un, même, ensemble' ..." and he goes on to say: "Le mois gaulois de Samoni(o)s dont l' identité de forme avec la fête irlandaise de Samain est évidente, est donc très probablement une période de 'rassemblement' avec les morts."

mucgwyrt

August 16th, 2005, 06:06 AM

Madainn mhath dhuit, Mucgwyrt.

Did they?

I dont know, I'm asking, really ;)
I'm not very well educated when it comes to the Celts, but I know thats how the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic calendar worked.

I've seen this suggested occasionally, but I don't know what the basis of the suggestion is. The existence of four Fèisean suggests an awareness of four seasons (and yes, I've also seen suggestions that Samuin and Beltaine were the "original two" Fèisean, but again, I have no idea where this suggestion comes from, and one of these suggestions is likely to be based, in part at least, on the other, so I would like to avoid circular reasoning here).

It seems to me that any agricultural and/or pastoral people would recognise four seasons (at least). To go back to the pre-Celtic inhabitants of western Europe for examples, if we look at the Brug na Bóinde (Newgrange), it is oriented toward the Sunrise on Midwinter, whilst Cnobga (Knowth) and Dubad (Dowth) are oriented to the Equinoxes (and these are all in the same area). Of course there are other examples that are oriented to the Sunrise on Midsummer. It would seem that these pre-Celtic people recognised four seasons, and if, as I believe, the religion commonly called "Druidism" was the result of a mingling of the cultures of the incoming Celts and the previous inhabitants of western Europe, one would expect this view to have been passed down into Celtic Heathen religion.

I dont see why it should stand to reason that theyd recognise four. There are the four 'stereotypical' seasons; leaves falling in autumn, snow in winter, sun in summer, growth in spring.......... but then there is the thaw inbetween winter and spring when the world just seems to stand still, and the bit inbetween spring and summer when the animals have finished birthing but the summer sun has not yet gained momentum etc etc etc with which you could argue it would stand to reason there were 8 :whatgives which more than likely there weren't, I'm just saying "it would stand to reason" isn't a very valid argument ;)

It also hardly seems likely that a supposedly more "primitive" culture (the pre-IE peoples of western Europe) would have known of four seasons, whilst a supposedly more "advanced" culture (the incoming IE Celtic peoples) would not have "developed" such a notion yet. I could be wrong about that, of course.

But the Celts had three elements rather than the "more developped" cultures which have four. The Saxons, which "came" after the Celts had two. :whatgives linearity and "advancement" isn't relevant.

At any rate, Delamarre says: "Le sens initial du v.irl. samain semble avoir été 'assemblée' (le mot veut dire 'essaim' à propos des abeilles), donc en l' occurrence 'assemblée, réunion avec les morts et l' Au-delà ; on compare alors avec le skr. sámanam 'assemblée, réunion, fête', goth. samana, v.norr. saman 'ensemble', racine i.e. *sem-, som-, sm- 'un, même, ensemble' ..." and he goes on to say: "Le mois gaulois de Samoni(o)s dont l' identité de forme avec la fête irlandaise de Samain est évidente, est donc très probablement une période de 'rassemblement' avec les morts."

I dont read french so thats not a good argument either ;) :T

xx

CromanMacNessa

August 16th, 2005, 06:12 AM

At any rate, Delamarre says: "Le sens initial du v.irl. samain semble avoir été 'assemblée' (le mot veut dire 'essaim' à propos des abeilles), donc en l' occurrence 'assemblée, réunion avec les morts et l' Au-delà' ; on compare alors avec le skr. sámanam 'assemblée, réunion, fête', goth. samana, v.norr. saman 'ensemble', racine i.e. *sem-, som-, sm- 'un, même, ensemble' ..." and he goes on to say: "Le mois gaulois de Samoni(o)s dont l' identité de forme avec la fête irlandaise de Samain est évidente, est donc très probablement une période de 'rassemblement' avec les morts."

Ok, for those who don't read French, this can be translated (roughly) as:

"The original sense of the Old Irish samain seems to be 'assembly' (the word suggests 'swarm' in connection with bees), therefore in fact 'assembly, meeting with the dead and the Beyond' ; one compares then with the Sanskrit. sámanam 'assembly, meeting, festival', Gothic samana, Old Norse saman 'together', IE root *sem-, som-, sm- 'one, even, together' ... The Gallic month of Samoni(o)s, whose identity of form with the Irish festival of Samain is obvious, is thus most probably a period of gathering with the dead."

By the way, I would think that the second part of the German word "zusammen" ("together") would also be derived from the same PIE root.

CromanMacNessa

August 16th, 2005, 06:23 AM

I dont see why it should stand to reason that theyd recognise four. There are the four 'stereotypical' seasons; leaves falling in autumn, snow in winter, sun in summer, growth in spring.......... but then there is the thaw inbetween winter and spring when the world just seems to stand still, and the bit inbetween spring and summer when the animals have finished birthing but the summer sun has not yet gained momentum etc etc etc with which they celebrated the Fire Festivals - and as such you could argue it would stand to reason there were 8 :whatgives which more than likely there weren't, I'm just saying "it would stand to reason" isn't a very valid argument ;)

Madainn mhath dhuit a rithist, Mucgwyrt.

I am not talking about the stereotypical seasons. I'm talking about, for example, the agricultural times of Fallow, Ploughing/Planting, Tending, and Harvesting. If you have lived on a farm, these are fairly distinct periods. Pastoral folk have similarly distinct times, but since I've never been a rancher, I can't speak of these with the same background as I can speak of farming (I cannot remember a time before which I took part in raising crops, at first only in the back yard, but later on an actual farm).

But the Celts had three elements rather than the "more developped" cultures which have four. The Saxons, which "came" after the Celts had two. :whatgives linearity and "advancement" isn't relevant.

Well, no. The Celts had/have Three Realms, and Nine Elements, and I would suspect that this was a PIE view, too (the Tripartite Cosmology is fairly well-established for PIE culture, but note also the Norse Nine Worlds, for example); the Four/Five element scheme was imported from the Middle East into Greece, and then into the rest of Europe).

I dont read french so thats not a good argument either ;) :T

xx

Sorry. I have provided a rough translation.

mothwench

August 16th, 2005, 06:43 AM

Did they? I've seen this suggested occasionally, but I don't know what the basis of the suggestion is. The existence of four Fèisean suggests an awareness of four seasons (and yes, I've also seen suggestions that Samuin and Beltaine were the "original two" Fèisean, but again, I have no idea where this suggestion comes from, and one of these suggestions is likely to be based, in part at least, on the other, so I would like to avoid circular reasoning here).
umm, i think that it comes from interpretations of the coligny calendar, among other things. also i think pliny wrote something about two seasons, but i'm not certain of that.

It seems to me that any agricultural and/or pastoral people would recognise four seasons (at least).
yes, i agree. but astrologically, the two seasons make more sense. and it's not like nobody was gazing at the stars back then in these parts.
To go back to the pre-Celtic inhabitants of western Europe for examples, if we look at the Brug na Bóinde (Newgrange), it is oriented toward the Sunrise on Midwinter, whilst Cnobga (Knowth) and Dubad (Dowth) are oriented to the Equinoxes (and these are all in the same area). Of course there are other examples that are oriented to the Sunrise on Midsummer.
i remember reading about a stone circle that marked the solstices and the equinoxes, but i don't think it leads to the assumption that they had four seasons any more than it leads to the assumption that they celebrated or acknowledged these occurences, which, they apparently also didn't.
It would seem that these pre-Celtic people recognised four seasons, and if, as I believe, the religion commonly called "Druidism" was the result of a mingling of the cultures of the incoming Celts and the previous inhabitants of western Europe, one would expect this view to have been passed down into Celtic Heathen religion. It also hardly seems likely that a supposedly more "primitive" culture (the pre-IE peoples of western Europe) would have known of four seasons, whilst a supposedly more "advanced" culture (the incoming IE Celtic peoples) would not have "developed" such a notion yet. I could be wrong about that, of course.
no, i don't think you're wrong, but i also don't think your right. :p i think that there were two ways to see the year. what the druids were doing was probably quite a way off from what the farmers were doing. i think there was the knowledge of the astrological year among the druid caste, and that they saw the year as a change of solstices. at the same time, farmers were planting their crops in spring and harvesting them in autumn.
edited to add: and they knew it. :kooky:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 16th, 2005, 09:29 AM

no, i don't think you're wrong, but i also don't think your right. :p i think that there were two ways to see the year. what the druids were doing was probably quite a way off from what the farmers were doing.

Not necessarily. Remember that the rituals were held at the festivals, of which there are four that mark the agricultural cycle, which does coincide with the seasons. And since the rituals are run by the druids, the druids were working on the same cycle. Now that doesn't mean that they (druids) didn't also recognize the solstices and/or equinoxes, just that they certainly did work within the same cycle as the rest of the folk.

mucgwyrt

August 16th, 2005, 09:48 AM

but (yes, I'm wildly out of depth here) the anglo-saxons also celebrated most of the fire-festivals, and still only had 2 seasons.

CromanMacNessa

August 16th, 2005, 09:58 AM

but (yes, I'm wildly out of depth here) the anglo-saxons also celebrated most of the fire-festivals, and still only had 2 seasons.

/|\
Mucgwyrt,

I'm not very familiar with Anglo-Saxon practices, but I believe they (and the other Germanic peoples) celebrated the Solstices and Equinoxes. Did they also celebrate the Fire Festivals? I do know about Hlafmas (celebrated at approximately the same time as Lugnasad/Lughnasadh/Lunasduinn), but I was under the impression that this was a later custom (possibly influenced by contact with the Brittonic Celts?).

mucgwyrt

August 16th, 2005, 10:19 AM

/|\
Mucgwyrt,

I'm not very familiar with Anglo-Saxon practices, but I believe they (and the other Germanic peoples) celebrated the Solstices and Equinoxes. Did they also celebrate the Fire Festivals? I do know about Hlafmas (celebrated at approximately the same time as Lugnasad/Lughnasadh/Lunasduinn), but I was under the impression that this was a later custom (possibly influenced by contact with the Brittonic Celts?).
The Anglo-Saxons are 'later'; they're kind of 450ad to 1066ad in England :)
There is evidence of them having celebrated the fire-festivals, as well as the soltices and equinoxes, like you say probably from mingling with the celts.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 16th, 2005, 10:51 AM

but (yes, I'm wildly out of depth here) the anglo-saxons also celebrated most of the fire-festivals, and still only had 2 seasons.

I was just arguing mothy's point that the druids were probably doing very different things than the people, not the two vs four seasons.

I agree with mothy's's comment that the Coligny Calender, at this current time of interpretation, seems to indicate 2 seasons - winter and summer. And it is recorded in Cormac's Glossary that there were two seasons. I've read the theory that the year was divided into two seasons, but that each season was further divided into 2 quarters. J.A. MacCulloch discusses this in Chapter XVIII of his book, The Religion of the Ancient Celts (1911). You can read it here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/rac/rac21.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/rac/rac21.htm) .

So I go with both theories, there were two seasons, but they were actually divided into four.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 16th, 2005, 10:56 AM

I am not talking about the stereotypical seasons. I'm talking about, for example, the agricultural times of Fallow, Ploughing/Planting, Tending, and Harvesting. If you have lived on a farm, these are fairly distinct periods. Pastoral folk have similarly distinct times, but since I've never been a rancher, I can't speak of these with the same background as I can speak of farming (I cannot remember a time before which I took part in raising crops, at first only in the back yard, but later on an actual farm).

BTW, since I grew up in a ranching community (though not on a ranch myself) I can provide info on that front. There are also four distinct periods amongst ranchers - Culling the herds, birthing, putting the herds out to pasture, and bringing them back in.

Some of my fondest memories are of the ranchers driving the cattle through town on their way back out of the mountains in the late summer/early fall.

Seren_

August 16th, 2005, 11:31 AM

But they only recognised Summer and Winter, like the Saxons, didn't they?

In addition to what other posters have said, I believe there's mention that the Irish year was split into two halves. From Samhain to Beltane, those who received an education would go to school - ie during the least intensive farming period - and then from Beltane to Samhain they would be released to help out in the fields. I can't remember the specific source, but I think it's from a medieval manuscript. Based on this arrangement, some scholars have suggested that this was originally based on a two season cycle. But then again, perhaps it was just a convenient division :whatgives

mothwench

August 16th, 2005, 01:00 PM

So I go with both theories, there were two seasons, but they were actually divided into four.
but how? if you have summer start round beltaine and winter start round samhain, where do spring and fall fit in? imbolg and lughnasdal? i suppose that's feasable... :hmmmmm:
i just think it's odd because imbolg is still very much in winter and lughnasdal is in the height of summer.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 16th, 2005, 01:23 PM

but how? if you have summer start round beltaine and winter start round samhain, where do spring and fall fit in? imbolg and lughnasdal? i suppose that's feasable... :hmmmmm:
i just think it's odd because imbolg is still very much in winter and lughnasdal is in the height of summer.

Imbolc is the start of spring, or to put it in terms as related to winter it's when winter starts to give way to the warmer weather of summer. It's when the snows start to recede/isn't as heavy, some birds start to return, certain flowers will bloom then. And Lunasdal is more Harvest / Cattle herding (in CO anyhow) season to me then distinctly autumn with the falling of the leaves. Again, to put it in terms of summer, it's when summer starts to give way to the cooler winter months. You also have to remember that the seasons vary from location to location. In Colorado by the time Lunasadal falls around it's getting pretty darn close to what we traditionally consider autumn - summer is in it's last gasp. You can tell the difference in the air. And really, for us Winter started usually 2 - 3 weeks before Samhuinn/Halloween (so much so that we changed the lines of the song White Christmas to "I'm dreaming of a White Halloween, because it was highly unusual to not have snow by then).

The feasts don't work on fixed dates in my experience, and that's why I don't celebrate them as such. I let it vary according to the weather, what's going on in the world around me. For instance most people celebrate Lunasdal August 1, for me it doesn't usually come until the 7th at the earliest, sometimes closer to the 15th. Imbolg is more than likely also mid-February. I don't genearlly play around with the dates Beltuinn and Samhuinn too much, just because May Day and Halloween are far to engraved in my head. But if I were going to, Samhuinn would for me be closer to the first frost and Beltuinn the blooming of the dogwood trees (at least in PA - it would be different in CO). Though I may start letting these dates vary according to the criteria I just listed.

To sum it up, I can tell that you've hit the half-way mark for winter at Imbolc and the halfway point (honestly I think it's beyond halfway) at Lunasdal. There is a noticable difference in the air and climate at those times.

mothwench

August 16th, 2005, 02:22 PM

Imbolc is the start of spring, or to put it in terms as related to winter it's when winter starts to give way to the warmer weather of summer. It's when the snows start to recede/isn't as heavy, some birds start to return, certain flowers will bloom then. And Lunasdal is more Harvest / Cattle herding (in CO anyhow) season to me then distinctly autumn with the falling of the leaves. Again, to put it in terms of summer, it's when summer starts to give way to the cooler winter months.
i disagree with that.
To sum it up, I can tell that you've hit the half-way mark for winter at Imbolc and the halfway point (honestly I think it's beyond halfway) at Lunasdal. There is a noticable difference in the air and climate at those times.
not here, there isn't... unless by half-way mark for imbolc you mean it just get's colder. i was just googling a bit to see if i was right, if it was perhaps just my perception, but it seems that january and febuary are the coldest months pretty much everywhere in europe. so why would that be the start of spring?
also, the flowers that start growing around that point, fair enough, but then helleborus blooms alot earlier and that's native in europe... then snowdrops start early january. to say that flowers start blooming around imbolc is arbitrary.

and just a side question here, where in europe, are we even talking about? it would help narrow it down. are we still in gaul? cause if we're talking in terms of climate having an influence on culture, well, southern gaul is slightly different from the outer hebrides, for example. :hehehehe:

what i'm trying to say is, there is sameness in season throughout the months of (late) december, january and february (coldest, snippiest winter), so it doesn't make much sense to me to mark the change of a season between or in one of those three months, just as much as there is sameness in season throughout the months of (late) june, july and august (blazing hot summer)

but hey, i'm no druid. i know nowt. :spinner:

Seren_

August 16th, 2005, 02:50 PM

not here, there isn't... unless by half-way mark for imbolc you mean it just get's colder. i was just googling a bit to see if i was right, if it was perhaps just my perception, but it seems that january and febuary are the coldest months pretty much everywhere in europe. so why would that be the start of spring?

While they might traditionally be the coldest months of the year, things do start growing, and for the farmers it's usually the time when they start sowing the seeds for the coming harvest. In that respect, even though it's cold, it's the start of the new agricultural year; spring has sprung. Also, this time of year was traditionally when the first new grass of the year started to grow in Ireland (apparently). Along with the cows calving, this meant the fresh milk was available, and so on. After a long winter, suddenly there's a bit more abundance than there used to be.

This article (http://www.celt.dias.ie/publications/celtica/c23/c23-231.pdf) says:

[A supply of milk] was something which was by no means guaranteed to be found readily to hand in the generally unproductive period that straddled the end of the winter season and the commencement of the spring proper, the period characterized, on the one hand, by the description, Na Faoilligh, an Irish name for the month of February, a word which may have been perceived as meaning `the leavings of the year', and, on the other, by the designation, mi silta, `the month of sowing'.

The country people always regarded and do still the advent of Feile Bride as marking the end of nature's sleep during winter and her re-awakening to afresh activity of life. This is of course exemplified in numerous ways in the animal and vegetable worlds. The mating instincts of animals (beasts and birds) are aroused even to the fishes of the sea. In the vegetable kingdom, signs of budding life are evident, and there is altogether a general re-birth, so to speak, of the natural order in the world.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 16th, 2005, 02:51 PM

i disagree with that.

Well you can disagree but you're wrong. :tongueout Just kidding, but in my experience that is exactly what happens, and it's what's recorded in the lore, so I would imagine that's how the Celtic speaking tribes perceived it as well. I think too many people get so caught up in what they think is the negatives of winter that they don't look for the positive. They miss the subtle signs that winter is on it's way out.

not here, there isn't... unless by half-way mark for imbolc you mean it just get's colder. i was just googling a bit to see if i was right, if it was perhaps just my perception, but it seems that january and febuary are the coldest months pretty much everywhere in europe. so why would that be the start of spring?

January is the coldest certainly, and to some extent february is as well, but after that the temperatures start to warm up. Hence the mid-way point of winter. Once you've hit the lowest of the low, it can only go up, neh? That's what makes it the start of spring - the fact that it's only going to get better from that point onward - not worse. This is why I said there are two seasons (winter and summer) marked by quarters (spring and autumn). The obvious signs show it's still winter, it's the less obvious that make it spring.

also, the flowers that start growing around that point, fair enough, but then helleborus blooms alot earlier and that's native in europe... then snowdrops start early january. to say that flowers start blooming around imbolc is arbitrary.

The blooming of the snowdrops is considered a traditional sign of spring according to the Irish and Scottish lore. So perhaps I should have been more specific and said that's when the snowdrops, associated with the end of winter, start to bloom.

and just a side question here, where in europe, are we even talking about? it would help narrow it down. are we still in gaul? cause if we're talking in terms of climate having an influence on culture, well, southern gaul is slightly different from the outer hebrides, for example.

Most of the examples I gave are personal ones from my experience in the states of Pennsylvania and Colorado, and not from Europe. However, when I'm talking about the lore, it's always in relation to Ireland and the Hebrides and Highlands of Scotland, most especially Scotland. I don't know anything about Welsh lore, and even less the Gauls. However, I think that while the all tended to celebrate the festivals at the same general time, there was no exact date for them, as I said in my previous post. Point in case, in the Highlands, most of the activities and traditions associated with the Irish Lughnasadh don't happen until closer to Michaelmas/Harvest Home/autumnal equinox than August 1, which is closer to when the activities occured in Ireland. Fixed dates for the festivals are a more "modern" invention as the people began to loose touch with the Land.

what i'm trying to say is, there is sameness in season throughout the months of (late) december, january and february (coldest, snippiest winter), so it doesn't make much sense to me to mark the change of a season between or in one of those three months, just as much as there is sameness in season throughout the months of (late) june, july and august (blazing hot summer)

I disagree. I think there are huge differences between december, january, and february. And I think the differences from June through August are even bigger and more noticeable. You don't have the same scorching sun and heat in June as you do in August. Not to be a poo-poo head, but I think that if you believe that those months are marked by sameness then you aren't paying enough attention.

mothwench

August 16th, 2005, 04:05 PM

:foh: i pay alot of attention to myself when i'm cursing at the august heat. :lol: but seren's article makes some sense.

This is why I said there are two seasons (winter and summer) marked by quarters (spring and autumn). The obvious signs show it's still winter, it's the less obvious that make it spring.
how does that work? can you give me a little diagram maybe? i just don't understand. the year as a circle, right. split that into semicircles, you get summer and winter. if you then halve those semi-circles, sorry, you just don't end up with spring or autum however you try and look at it.
though maybe i'm just not getting what your saying about the quarters. :huh:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 16th, 2005, 04:16 PM

Gotta dash, but there was a "diagram" in the chapter I linked, I believe.

CromanMacNessa

August 16th, 2005, 04:43 PM

i just think it's odd because imbolg is still very much in winter and lughnasdal is in the height of summer.

Feasgar math dhuibh, Mothwench, agus Mucgwyrt, agus a Mhòrag, agus Seren_, agus a h-uile duine eile.

From what you've said there, it looks as if you're looking at the "stereotypical" seasons, rather than the agricultural/pastoral seasons. Weather is not what determines the seasons (but I'll have more to say about that below).

Imbolc is the start of spring, or to put it in terms as related to winter it's when winter starts to give way to the warmer weather of summer. It's when the snows start to recede/isn't as heavy, some birds start to return, certain flowers will bloom then. And Lunasdal is more Harvest / Cattle herding (in CO anyhow) season to me then distinctly autumn with the falling of the leaves. Again, to put it in terms of summer, it's when summer starts to give way to the cooler winter months. You also have to remember that the seasons vary from location to location. In Colorado by the time Lunasadal falls around it's getting pretty darn close to what we traditionally consider autumn - summer is in it's last gasp. You can tell the difference in the air. And really, for us Winter started usually 2 - 3 weeks before Samhuinn/Halloween (so much so that we changed the lines of the song White Christmas to "I'm dreaming of a White Halloween, because it was highly unusual to not have snow by then).

Everywhere I've lived, from Texas to Washington state to Arkansas, the coldest time of year is right at the popular time of Imbolg, and the hottest time of year is right at the popular time of Lunasduinn. By "the popular time of," I'm referring to the fixed dates of the Julian/Gregorian calendar. In fact, here in Arkansas, there have been some years when we didn't get any snow at all until right at that popular time of Imbolg, and then it might snow several times more before April.

The feasts don't work on fixed dates in my experience, and that's why I don't celebrate them as such. I let it vary according to the weather, what's going on in the world around me. For instance most people celebrate Lunasdal August 1, for me it doesn't usually come until the 7th at the earliest, sometimes closer to the 15th. Imbolg is more than likely also mid-February. I don't genearlly play around with the dates Beltuinn and Samhuinn too much, just because May Day and Halloween are far to engraved in my head. But if I were going to, Samhuinn would for me be closer to the first frost and Beltuinn the blooming of the dogwood trees (at least in PA - it would be different in CO). Though I may start letting these dates vary according to the criteria I just listed.

I agree, these Féisean shouldn't be celebrated at a fixed date. Until relatively recent times, in fact, the Irish and Scottish did not celebrate these occasions on fixed dates. I have some comments here:

http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/holidayintro.msnw (http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/holidayintro.msnw)

In Irish Tradition, it's not Bealtaine till the Hawthorns blossom ...

To sum it up, I can tell that you've hit the half-way mark for winter at Imbolc and the halfway point (honestly I think it's beyond halfway) at Lunasdal. There is a noticable difference in the air and climate at those times.

I agree, there is a noticeable difference.

not here, there isn't... unless by half-way mark for imbolc you mean it just get's colder. i was just googling a bit to see if i was right, if it was perhaps just my perception, but it seems that january and febuary are the coldest months pretty much everywhere in europe. so why would that be the start of spring?
also, the flowers that start growing around that point, fair enough, but then helleborus blooms alot earlier and that's native in europe... then snowdrops start early january. to say that flowers start blooming around imbolc is arbitrary.

I have noticed late January and early February to be the coldest part of the year. Regarding the flowers, I'll say more below.

While they might traditionally be the coldest months of the year, things do start growing, and for the farmers it's usually the time when they start sowing the seeds for the coming harvest. In that respect, even though it's cold, it's the start of the new agricultural year; spring has sprung. Also, this time of year was traditionally when the first new grass of the year started to grow in Ireland (apparently). Along with the cows calving, this meant the fresh milk was available, and so on. After a long winter, suddenly there's a bit more abundance than there used to be.

That's what I mean about the agricultural/pastoral seasons. Imbolg is the first stirring of plantlife under the soil, and the time when the ewes begin to lactate in preparation for the coming season of birth. The very name "Imbolg" may be nothing more than an alternate way to say "Óimelc" (which is another Traditional name for this Féis), which means "ewe's milk."

I think too many people get so caught up in what they think is the negatives of winter that they don't look for the positive. They miss the subtle signs that winter is on it's way out.

I think this is again about watching the weather instead of the plants and animals. But I like the cold myself, far better than the heat, so I wouldn't call it negative. Of course, if I lived further north, I might have a different view ...

The blooming of the snowdrops is considered a traditional sign of spring according to the Irish and Scottish lore. So perhaps I should have been more specific and said that's when the snowdrops, associated with the end of winter, start to bloom.

In fact, in the text for which I provided the link earlier, Wonder Tales from Scottish Myth and Legend, by Donald Alexander Mackenzie, the reason for the association of the Snowdrop with Imbolg is mythically explained. In Scottish Tradition, it's not Imbolg till the first Snowdrop blooms.

Seren_

August 16th, 2005, 05:35 PM

Weather is not what determines the seasons (but I'll have more to say about that below).

That's a good point. Weather wouldn't be a reliable indicator most of the time because you get Indian summers and early springs and all that...The weather doesn't always do what it's s'posed to, but regardless of the heat/cold you still get the snowdrops growing and the seed in the ground at a certain time of year, neh?

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 16th, 2005, 05:53 PM

:foh: i pay alot of attention to myself when i'm cursing at the august heat. :lol: but seren's article makes some sense.

how does that work? can you give me a little diagram maybe? i just don't understand. the year as a circle, right. split that into semicircles, you get summer and winter. if you then halve those semi-circles, sorry, you just don't end up with spring or autum however you try and look at it.
though maybe i'm just not getting what your saying about the quarters. :huh:

Okay now I have time to elaborate upon my point.

I don't split the seasons on exact dates and exact lengths of time. If we go with the theory of 2 seasons, summer and winter, they are not each 6 months long. When I was in Colorado, the winter definitely started in the early part of October, some years earlier, and frequently lasted until early to Mid-May, that's seven to seven and half months, leaving only five or four and half months of summer. In Pennsylvania, the winter probably more closely matches a six month cycle, not starting until close to the middle of November and absolutely gone by the beginning to middle of April. In either case I judge the beginning of winter to be the first frost. The heavy snows and frigid temperatures lasted typically until March, so I would have placed Imbolc sometime around the beginning of March - and not the fixed February 1 that most neo-pagans place it at.

I already explained that for summer in Pennsylvania I look to the blooming of the dogwood trees. Although the redbuds and magnolias bloom at approximately the same time, so perhaps I should more accurately say, I wait for the trees to flower for summer. This is typically late April. At Lunasdal I'm still debating whether I should look to the ripening of such fruits as raspberries and blackberries, or to apples. In Colorado I would definitely say apples (we had several apple trees in our yard), which tends to be late August or early September. It would be the same time frame in Pennsylvania for apples. However the past couple years, since I've lived in PA, I've been celebrating Lunasdal closer to the berries ripening in mid-August.

As you can see the festivals aren't set apart on a perfect schedule of three months apart as you see now with the fixed dates. They are determined by what is going on in the world around me and not by dates that someone determined were close enough.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 16th, 2005, 06:04 PM

Everywhere I've lived, from Texas to Washington state to Arkansas, the coldest time of year is right at the popular time of Imbolg, and the hottest time of year is right at the popular time of Lunasduinn. By "the popular time of," I'm referring to the fixed dates of the Julian/Gregorian calendar. In fact, here in Arkansas, there have been some years when we didn't get any snow at all until right at that popular time of Imbolg, and then it might snow several times more before April.

In Pennsylvania, I think it tends towards the end of January. We usually have a warm snap near the middle to end of February with temperatures near or at 70 degrees Farenheit. This is so regular that one guy was able to plan a golfing excursion for his bachelor party. So to be honest, I would consider this to be the perfect time for Imbolc festivities.

I agree, these Féisean shouldn't be celebrated at a fixed date. Until relatively recent times, in fact, the Irish and Scottish did not celebrate these occasions on fixed dates. I have some comments here:

http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/holidayintro.msnw (http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/holidayintro.msnw)

I will have to read it as soon as I am done typing.

In Irish Tradition, it's not Bealtaine till the Hawthorns blossom...

~nods~

I agree, there is a noticeable difference.

I have noticed late January and early February to be the coldest part of the year. Regarding the flowers, I'll say more below.

I don't find June to be nearly as stiffling and unbearably muggy and hot as August is. For the most part it's a fairly comfortable month. Winter is also quite different. Amounts of snowfall is one big way of differentiating the two. Early February is much colder and icyer (is that a word?) than December and even January are.

That's what I mean about the agricultural/pastoral seasons. Imbolg is the first stirring of plantlife under the soil, and the time when the ewes begin to lactate in preparation for the coming season of birth. The very name "Imbolg" may be nothing more than an alternate way to say "Óimelc" (which is another Traditional name for this Féis), which means "ewe's milk."

I've also read some where that there is a possible tie between Imboc lustration by bathing in milk. Do you know anything about this theory Corman?

I think this is again about watching the weather instead of the plants and animals. But I like the cold myself, far better than the heat, so I wouldn't call it negative. Of course, if I lived further north, I might have a different view ...

I too prefer the cold of winter than the heat of summer, but so many people view winter as a negative that it seemed the simplest choice of words.

In fact, in the text for which I provided the link earlier, Wonder Tales from Scottish Myth and Legend, by Donald Alexander Mackenzie, the reason for the association of the Snowdrop with Imbolg is mythically explained. In Scottish Tradition, it's not Imbolg till the first Snowdrop blooms.

Even more reason for me to buy the book then. It's moving to the top of my list.

CromanMacNessa

August 16th, 2005, 06:22 PM

In Pennsylvania, I think it tends towards the end of January. We usually have a warm snap near the middle to end of February with temperatures near or at 70 degrees Farenheit. This is so regular that one guy was able to plan a golfing excursion for his bachelor party. So to be honest, I would consider this to be the perfect time for Imbolc festivities.

Feasgar math dhuit, a Mhòrag.

As the celebrations of Imbolg are usually centred around the spiritual centre of the home (the Sacred Hearth, associated with Brìghid), I find the coldest time of year quite appropriate for this Féis.

Early February is much colder and icyer (is that a word?) than December and even January are.

Icier. :santasmil

I've also read some where that there is a possible tie between Imboc lustration by bathing in milk. Do you know anything about this theory Corman?

Yes, I believe I make reference to that idea in discussing Imbolg in the introductory article on the Holy Days to which I linked earlier.

Even more reason for me to buy the book then. It's moving to the top of my list.

It's a good book, one of the few accessible (by which I mean, written for the common person, rather than academics, and it even makes a good book of bedtime stories for children) texts that give a good glimpse into Scottish Heathen Tradition.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 16th, 2005, 06:33 PM

Feasgar math dhuit, a Mhòrag.

As the celebrations of Imbolg are usually centred around the spiritual centre of the home (the Sacred Hearth, associated with Brìghid), I find the coldest time of year quite appropriate for this Féis.

I see your point, but since it's also about the triumph of the Spring Maiden (Brighde) over the Winter Hag (the Cailleach), I think that celebrating it at a time when the winter momentarily disappears. Especially when you consider that Aengus Mac Og is said to have borrowed what 5 days (somehow that doesn't sound right, and I'm too lazy at the moment to look it up, is it perhaps three?) from summer in order to find Brighde.

Icier. :santasmil

Thank you! :smooch: I knew I was spelling it wrong. I must have been having a blonde moment.

Yes, I believe I make reference to that idea in discussing Imbolg in the introductory article on the Holy Days to which I linked earlier.

That's what I get for asking before reading your article. :whistle:

It's a good book, one of the few accessible (by which I mean, written for the common person, rather than academics, and it even makes a good book of bedtime stories for children) texts that give a good glimpse into Scottish Heathen Tradition.

~nods~ I like to read from Scottish Folk and Fairy Tales, edited by Sir George Douglas, for my son, when he lets me. For some reason, despite his father's and my deep love of reading, my two year old son will instantly close the book and pronounce all done if we try to read to him. :hrmm: So sadly it doesn't happen as often as I would like.

mucgwyrt

August 17th, 2005, 03:57 AM

i disagree with that.

not here, there isn't... unless by half-way mark for imbolc you mean it just get's colder. i was just googling a bit to see if i was right, if it was perhaps just my perception, but it seems that january and febuary are the coldest months pretty much everywhere in europe. so why would that be the start of spring?

January is the coldest certainly, and to some extent february is as well,

Here in Britain we get snows in February, rarely before.

Summer is not nearly so reliable; the few weeks of blazing 'summer' sunshine we get a year can occur anywhere from early June to early September. For example, this year we had a fabulous beginning of June, rainy end, great early July, crap late july and crap early august, and now its nice again so the farmers are rushing to harvest their wheat :nyah:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 17th, 2005, 06:08 AM

Here in Britain we get snows in February, rarely before.

Summer is not nearly so reliable; the few weeks of blazing 'summer' sunshine we get a year can occur anywhere from early June to early September. For example, this year we had a fabulous beginning of June, rainy end, great early July, crap late july and crap early august, and now its nice again so the farmers are rushing to harvest their wheat :nyah:

You also have to remember that climate changes over the years. The weather that you see now in Britain is not the same weather patterns that the Celtic people saw. So while February might be the snow month for you now, it might not have been for them.

And again, you're paying to much attention to the weather (snow) and not enough to the plants and animals (snowdrops, birds, etc.). It's not about the weather necessarily but the other things that are happening.

mucgwyrt

August 17th, 2005, 06:09 AM

You also have to remember that climate changes over the years. The weather that you see now in Britain is not the same weather patterns that the Celtic people saw. So while February might be the snow month for you now, it might not have been for them.

And again, you're paying to much attention to the weather (snow) and not enough to the plants and animals (snowdrops, birds, etc.). It's not about the weather necessarily but the other things that are happening.
:whatives I do pay attention to the animals and plants, but because of global warming we get things like snowdrops a whole month earlier than when I was a kid, so they dont seem reliable to me ;)

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 17th, 2005, 06:18 AM

Global warming affects the climate and thus affects how the festivals should fall. They aren't fixed dates, but are related to when certain things happen in the world around you. So if the snowdrops are blooming a month earlier than they used to, then Imbolc should be celebrated a month early. Do you see what I'm saying?

It's not the signs that are being unreliable, it's the insistence that the feast days must happen at a certain time (ie Imbolc February 1) that is unreliable.

mucgwyrt

August 17th, 2005, 06:19 AM

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 17th, 2005, 06:25 AM

Then why are you saying the signs are unreliable? :huh:

mucgwyrt

August 17th, 2005, 06:34 AM

Then why are you saying the signs are unreliable? :huh:
coz they are, when it comes to whether its winter or summer. As in, the seasons and the months etc.
*is beginning to confuse herself :doh2: *

ap Dafydd

August 17th, 2005, 07:27 AM

I agree with mothy's's comment that the Coligny Calender, at this current time of interpretation, seems to indicate 2 seasons - winter and summer. And it is recorded in Cormac's Glossary that there were two seasons.

Just on a side issue, you don't happen to know if there's an online translation of Cormac, do you?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

mucgwyrt

August 17th, 2005, 07:31 AM

Just on a side issue, you don't happen to know if there's an online translation of Cormac, do you?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred
:wave:

(not me, but :wave: anyway :nyah: )

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 17th, 2005, 08:11 AM

coz they are, when it comes to whether its winter or summer. As in, the seasons and the months etc.
*is beginning to confuse herself :doh2: *

I disagree. It's the idea that spring, summer, winter, and fall/autumn are supposed to begin at a certain time that's unreliable. The seasons happen when they are ready to happen, not when we think they should happen.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 17th, 2005, 08:11 AM

Just on a side issue, you don't happen to know if there's an online translation of Cormac, do you?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

~pouts~ No - not that I've been able to find anyhow. I wish there was.

mucgwyrt

August 17th, 2005, 08:57 AM

I disagree. It's the idea that spring, summer, winter, and fall/autumn are supposed to begin at a certain time that's unreliable. The seasons happen when they are ready to happen, not when we think they should happen.
....but thats because we split the year into 4 equal parts, and its a solar year :whatgives

Whats Cormac?

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 17th, 2005, 09:20 AM

....but thats because we split the year into 4 equal parts, and its a solar year :whatgives

Whats Cormac?

But the seasons don't work that way. Spring rarely starts when people say it should start, same goes for the rest of the seasons. That's what I've been saying all along, it's a mistake to apply arbitrary dates of "this is when spring starts" when in reality that's an unreliable and ultimately useless method. The Gaels didn't say, "oh it's February 1, today is the first day of spring." They said, "look the snowdrops are starting to blossom and the ewes are lactating, we better start preparing the land for planting."

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 17th, 2005, 09:22 AM

Cormac's Glossary is a glossary of Irish Oral tradition written in the 9th or 10th century. It's similar, I would imagine, to what Bede did for the Anglo-Saxons.

Here's a little more info on it: http://www.maryjones.us/jce/cormac3.html (http://www.maryjones.us/jce/cormac3.html)

mucgwyrt

August 17th, 2005, 09:27 AM

But the seasons don't work that way. Spring rarely starts when people say it should start, same goes for the rest of the seasons. That's what I've been saying all along, it's a mistake to apply arbitrary dates of "this is when spring starts" when in reality that's an unreliable and ultimately useless method. The Gaels didn't say, "oh it's February 1, today is the first day of spring." They said, "look the snowdrops are starting to blossom and the ewes are lactating, we better start preparing the land for planting."
:uhhuhuh: good point. The two dont necessarily have to go hand in hand, do they? You deserve a deductive --> :cookie: :D

Ohh I see. I have an Old English Glossary at home *sigh* it was an impulse buy which then turned out to be 100% latin, and therefore totally unreadable to me, and now I can't even sell the sodding thing :awwman:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 17th, 2005, 09:46 AM

:uhhuhuh: good point. The two dont necessarily have to go hand in hand, do they? You deserve a deductive --> :cookie: :D

Took you long enough to agree with me. That's what I've been saying for the past however many pages. :fishsmack:

Ohh I see. I have an Old English Glossary at home *sigh* it was an impulse buy which then turned out to be 100% latin, and therefore totally unreadable to me, and now I can't even sell the sodding thing :awwman:

Actually I should have said that it's more an encyclopedia than a Glossary. And it is considered to be the first etymolgical dictionary of a non-classical language. Although, many of his etymolgies have since proven incorrect (such as his interpretation of Brighde's name coming from breo saghit (I know that's spelled wrong) meaning 'fiery arrow) and are considered to be folk etymolgies. It's still a highly important and useful book that any scholar of Irish folklore and mythology references.

mucgwyrt

August 17th, 2005, 10:23 AM

Took you long enough to agree with me. That's what I've been saying for the past however many pages. :fishsmack:

:fpeek: So I'm slow. You luff me anyway right? :hahugh:

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 17th, 2005, 10:29 AM

Of course I do. _pounce_ Have a _cookie_.

CromanMacNessa

August 17th, 2005, 02:17 PM

Just on a side issue, you don't happen to know if there's an online translation of Cormac, do you?

Hylo, Ffred.

So far as I know, there isn't --- yet. CELT has planned to put up two versions in the near future (but be warned, I think these are both untranslated), but I don't think they're up yet. I recently asked on the Old Irish list about this myself, and got no answer, so apparently noone knows of any currently existing translation online.

Bendithion yr hen Dduwiau Celtaidd ar bawb.

ap Dafydd

August 18th, 2005, 06:44 AM

So far as I know, there isn't --- yet. CELT has planned to put up two versions in the near future (but be warned, I think these are both untranslated), but I don't think they're up yet. I recently asked on the Old Irish list about this myself, and got no answer, so apparently noone knows of any currently existing translation online.

Curious that there's not, though I'm not even sure whether there's a printed translation available (I know I wasn't able to find one in my local uni, who have a fairly good collection of the older stuff. I did manage to google an untranslated version but seeing as I don't speak a word of Old Irish, it wasn't much good!

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 18th, 2005, 08:21 AM

mucgwyrt

August 18th, 2005, 08:59 AM

CromanMacNessa

August 18th, 2005, 04:01 PM

I believe there are two translations of it Ffred. Kuno Meyer did one in the early part of the last century and there is another one from the late part of the 19th century . You can usually get them at amazon but it looks they don't have either translation available right now (but I checked the american site, they might have them at the UK site).

Feasgar math, a Mhòrag.

Those are both editions of the Old Irish text (one by Kuno Meyer, one by Whitley Stokes).

So far as I know, there isn't any published translation into English at all. There are selections which have been translated into English here and there, but not a full translation in publication to my knowledge.

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 18th, 2005, 08:51 PM

Feasgar math, a Mhòrag.

Those are both editions of the Old Irish text (one by Kuno Meyer, one by Whitley Stokes).

So far as I know, there isn't any published translation into English at all. There are selections which have been translated into English here and there, but not a full translation in publication to my knowledge.

Really? The Amazon website says the Kuno Meyer edition is in English. :whatgives

CromanMacNessa

August 19th, 2005, 12:00 AM

Really? The Amazon website says the Kuno Meyer edition is in English. :whatgives

Madainn mhath, a Mhòrag.

I've just double-checked at the Book for Scholars site, and it refers to both editions as "in Irish."

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 19th, 2005, 10:14 AM

Madainn mhath, a Mhòrag.

I've just double-checked at the Book for Scholars site, and it refers to both editions as "in Irish."

Someone better tell Amazon that then. I mean really how does one mix up English and Irish? :eyez:

mucgwyrt

August 19th, 2005, 10:19 AM

Someone better tell Amazon that then. I mean really how does one mix up English and Irish? :eyez:

Well it is an American site _tomatoe_

;)

Seren_

August 19th, 2005, 10:25 AM

Well it is an American site _tomatoe_

;)

:fishsmack

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 19th, 2005, 11:06 AM

Well it is an American site _tomatoe_

;)

I bet the UK site says the same thing. :fishsmack

Kern

August 19th, 2005, 03:21 PM

CromanMacNessa

August 20th, 2005, 05:08 AM

Found this today thought it was interesting:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~monticue/early_history_of_scotland.htm (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~monticue/early_history_of_scotland.htm)

THE SCOTS IN SCOTTISH DALRIADA
The Romans never invaded Ireland, which they called Scotia, although they traded with the inhabitants, the Gaels, or the Scots as they were also known. Like Britain, Ireland had been colonised by Celts from about 300 BC, and consisted of various tribal kingdoms, whose kings periodically and reluctantly recognised one of their number as high king. The country as a whole was never united. From about the 3rd century AD, the Scots in Ulster, which was known as Dalriada (possibly meaning "the assembly of the kings"), began to colonise western Scotland north of Strathclyde. To this day the area they occupied is known as Argyll "the coastline of the Gaels". Rather confusingly, some history books refer to this ancient kingdom as Dalriada without specifying Scottish Dalriada.
Traditionally, the most important colonising expedition was that led by the three sons of King Erc: Fergus, Angus and Lorn. The latter two have left their names in Scottish territories; the former, who is credited with bringing the Stone of Scone to Scotland, is commemorated by Carrickfergus in Ulster, named after the rock which sank his ship as he returned home. The kings of Scottish Dalriada for generations remained subservient to those of Ireland.

A separate development occurred some centuries later when southern Strathclyde received an influx of Gaels of mixed Irish and Norse ancestry; these people became known as Gall-Ghódil "stranger Gaels" and gave their name to Galloway.

Madainn mhath, Kern.

There are a few inaccuracies there, and at least one statement that is unsupported and highly controversial.

Inaccuracy - << the Gaels, or the Scots as they were also known >>

It wasn't "the Gaels" who were known as "Scots," but the Irish, or more specifically, the people of that Irish Túath known as the Dál Riata. These people were not originally Gaels (in the sense of language/culture), but Érainn, and were probably still speaking Ivernic (the language of the Érainn) when they began to colonise western Scotland. It is, however, generally supposed that they were speaking Old Irish by the time of the three (or six, depending on how accurate the Senchus Fer nAlbann is) sons of Erc in circa AD 500.

Unsupported and controversial - << Like Britain, Ireland had been colonised by Celts from about 300 BC >>

The date(s) when the first Celtic "tribes" migrated into Ireland is/are quite uncertain, and there have been a number of suggestions. 300 BCE seems much too late to me. T.F. O'Rahilly suggested (and I am inclined to agree) that the first Celtic "tribal" groups entered Ireland circa 800 BCE (see further Early Irish History and Mythology, by O'Rahilly). In addition, amongst modern academics, there is even debate as to whether or not there were any migrations at all! Some believe that the movement of Celtic culture into the British Isles was the result of influence, and not either invasion (for which there is no archaeological evidence) or migration (for which the archaeological evidence is inconclusive). Others suggest an "indigenous development theory," which is much the same as the notion that the native British and Irish were "influenced" by those Celtic peoples on the Continent.

Dubious - << consisted of various tribal kingdoms, whose kings periodically and reluctantly recognised one of their number as high king. >>

Many modern scholars dispute that there was ever any actual Árd-Rí of all of Ireland until perhaps as late as the time of Brian Boruma, and generally suggest that references to earlier holders of that office were completely mythical or legendary, or at least had the later title and associated trappings added to their stories so as to support the later idea.

Several comments on this passage - << From about the 3rd century AD, the Scots in Ulster, which was known as Dalriada (possibly meaning "the assembly of the kings"), began to colonise western Scotland north of Strathclyde. To this day the area they occupied is known as Argyll "the coastline of the Gaels". Rather confusingly, some history books refer to this ancient kingdom as Dalriada without specifying Scottish Dalriada. >>

The Senchus Fer nAlbann says that the Dál Riata began colonising Argyll and the Western Isles 10 generations before the death of Erc, one of the holders of the office of Rí of the Dál Riata (died about AD 498). What the text means by "generations" is questionable, but the 3rd century AD isn't out of the question.

Ulster was never known as Dalriada. Ulster (more properly Cóiced Ulaid, the Fifth of the Ulaidh, or Province of the Ulaidh) was a Province of Ireland, which was more or less an autonomous and sovereign region within Ireland. Within this Province was a Túath (usually translated "Tribe" or "people") known as the Dál Riata. The meaning of this name is said to be derived from an eponymous Ancestor called "Eochu Riata."

Although modern Irish "dáil" (derived from Old Irish "dál") means "assembly," the Old Irish word here is another of several which is translated "tribe" or "people." The literal meaning is "court."

As for "Riata," I'm not sure if anyone knows what it means, but it most certainly is not "of the kings." The stem of Old Irish "rí" is "ríg-," and that would be reflected in declined forms of the word.

"Kingdom" is not the best way to refer to the territory.

The name in Old Irish is "Dál Riata." The later Scottish form is "Dàl Riada."

Inaccuracy - << The kings of Scottish Dalriada for generations remained subservient to those of Ireland. >>

Actually, it was the other way around. Only in the very beginning (circa AD 500, when Fergus, Angus, and Lorn went to Argyll) were the Scottish Dàl Riada regarded as clients of the Irish Dál Riata, and then it was the Rí of the Scottish Dàl Riada who was regarded as also the Rí of the Irish Dál Riata, until the battle of Mag Rath in 637, after which the Dàl Riada focused on their Scottish territories only, and the Irish territories were lost to the Uí Néill. Later, the Scottish Dàl Riada were at times ruled by the Picts, and at times independent. Finally, Cináed mac Alpin (Kenneth mac Alpin) united the Dàl Riada with the Picts, in the early to mid 9th century, and these were subsequently united with the Britons of Strathclyde and the Angles of the Scottish Lowlands.

Kern

August 20th, 2005, 03:18 PM

Madainn mhath, Kern.

There are a few inaccuracies there, and at least one statement that is unsupported and highly controversial.

Inaccuracy - << the Gaels, or the Scots as they were also known >>

[QUOTE]It wasn't "the Gaels" who were known as "Scots," but the Irish, or more specifically, the people of that Irish Túath known as the Dál Riata. These people were not originally Gaels (in the sense of language/culture), but Érainn, and were probably still speaking Ivernic (the language of the Érainn when they began to colonise western Scotland). It is, however, generally supposed that they were speaking Old Irish by the time of the three (or six, depending on how accurate the Senchus Fer nAlbann is) sons of Erc in circa AD 500.

Ive never heard this before..The way I have heard it,was that All Gaelic speaking peoples were refered to as Gaels,that would include the Scots..the quote "the Gaels,or the Scots as they were known" to me simply implies that the Gaelic Speaking peoples who formed Dal Raita and Dal Raida were known as Scots..that was one name that the Romans applied to the Gaelic speaking tribes of Scotland...as for the rest of the information you gave,I couldnt refute any of it..

CromanMacNessa

August 20th, 2005, 03:45 PM

Ive never heard this before..The way I have heard it,was that All Gaelic speaking peoples were refered to as Gaels,that would include the Scots..the quote "the Gaels,or the Scots as they were known" to me simply implies that the Gaelic Speaking peoples who formed Dal Raita and Dal Raida were known as Scots..that was one name that the Romans applied to the Gaelic speaking tribes of Scotland...as for the rest of the information you gave,I couldnt refute any of it..

Feasgar math, Kern.

See Early Irish History and Mythology, by T.F. O'Rahilly. It's available from http://www.booksforscholars.com (http://www.booksforscholars.com)

See also this brief discussion:

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/milesians.htm (http://homepage.tinet.ie/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/milesians.htm)

Kern

August 20th, 2005, 04:29 PM

The Lebor Gabála is structured in ten sections, the first dealing with the Creation, the third to the seventh with the earliest invasions of Partholón, the Fir Bolg, Tuatha De Dannann and so on, the eighth describing the invasion of the sons of Míl or the Gaedil, and the ninth and tenth consisting of the Roll of Kings. http://homepage.tinet.ie/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/milesians.htm (http://homepage.tinet.ie/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/milesians.htm)

From this article is shows that the Scots/Milesians are Gaedil/Gaelic,that was what I was saying..
But I guess it all depends on whose version of Irish History one believes...I accept the version that the Milesian Scots who invaded Eire,then later migrated to northern Ireland settled there then later formed Dal Raita in Scotland...without the biblical leanings.So in that since the Scots( Irish tribes)were both Gaels and Gaelic speaking..

Feasgar math, Kern.

See Early Irish History and Mythology, by T.F. O'Rahilly. It's available from http://www.booksforscholars.com (http://www.booksforscholars.com)

See also this brief discussion:

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/milesians.htm (http://homepage.tinet.ie/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/milesians.htm)

CromanMacNessa

August 20th, 2005, 04:55 PM

From this article is shows that the Scots/Milesians are Gaedil/Gaelic,that was what I was saying..
But I guess it all depends on whose version of Irish History one believes...I accept the version that the Milesian Scots who invaded Eire,then later migrated to northern Ireland settled there then later formed Dal Raita in Scotland...without the biblical leanings.So in that since the Scots( Irish tribes)were both Gaels and Gaelic speaking..

Feasgar math, Kern.

No, the article says that there never were any "Milesians." It certainly doesn't say that the Scots were "Milesians," because the "Milesians" are a fiction (or it might be more fair to say that they were the mythical Ancestors of the Goidels). The Scots (by which I mean here, the Dál Riata) never claimed to be, nor did anyone else ever claim that they were, descended from the mythical Sons of Míled, except for brief mention of "Scota" and "Eber Scot" (both fictionalised characters) in Lebor Gabála Érenn.

And they were only "Gaels" when they began speaking Primitive Irish (the predecessor of Old Irish), which they didn't till after the Goidels got to Ireland (which was long after the Ancestors of the Dál Riata). The Érainn (earlier called "Iuerni" or "Iverni") were also known as "Builg," and they are also present in LGÉ, as the mythical "Fir Bolg." The Dál Riata are well-established as an Ivernian túath, not a Goidelic túath.

Please bear in mind that LGÉ was written with more than one agenda. One of those agendas had to do with establishing a connection to patriarchs of the Tanakh (or "Old Testament"), to which you have alluded, but another was an attempt to establish the Goidels as the rightfully dominant ethnic group in Ireland, and as such, a lot of history was re-written in that book. It's not by any means (as you agree, I am sure), an inerrant text. It's also not even an infallible text. We don't have a holy book, and if we did, LGÉ wouldn't be it.

Kern

August 20th, 2005, 05:10 PM

Feasgar math(????),CromanMacNessa.
Sorry I must have misread that....So your saying that from true historical records that the Scots(Irish) were never actually Gaels,until they adopted Gaelic Laanguage and Culture(In Ireland).So all the history saying different is Bull..So The ancestors of the Scots and the Modern Irish are not truly Celtic..Who were the Goidels(of Ireland) then if the Scots(Irish) peoples were not originally?
As for the names Eber and Iver(ni) I read somewhere one time that they actually came from the same source.

You need to start a different thread about this topic...

Feasgar math, Kern.

No, the article says that there never were any "Milesians." It certainly doesn't say that the Scots were "Milesians," because the "Milesians" are a fiction (or it might be more fair to say that they were the mythical Ancestors of the Goidels). The Scots (by which I mean here, the Dál Riata) never claimed to be, nor did anyone else ever claim that they were, descended from the mythical Sons of Míled, except for brief mention of "Scota" and "Eber Scot" (both fictionalised characters) in Lebor Gabála Érenn.

And they were only "Gaels" when they began speaking Primitive Irish (the predecessor of Old Irish), which they didn't till after the Goidels got to Ireland (which was long after the Ancestors of the Dál Riata). The Érainn (earlier called "Iuerni" or "Iverni") were also known as "Builg," and they are also present in LGÉ, as the mythical "Fir Bolg." The Dál Riata are well-established as an Ivernian túath, not a Goidelic túath.

Please bear in mind that LGÉ was written with more than one agenda. One of those agendas had to do with establishing a connection to patriarchs of the Tanakh (or "Old Testament"), to which you have alluded, but another was an attempt to establish the Goidels as the rightfully dominant ethnic group in Ireland, and as such, a lot of history was re-written in that book. It's not by any means (as you agree, I am sure), an inerrant text. It's also not even an infallible text. We don't have a holy book, and if we did, LGÉ wouldn't be it.

CromanMacNessa

August 20th, 2005, 05:17 PM

Kern

August 20th, 2005, 05:24 PM

Feasgar math (Gaelic for "Good afternoon/evening"), Kern.

I think if you read up on more recent histories of the Irish, you'll find that there isn't any serious historian who takes LGÉ for literal history. And no, I'm not saying that the Ancestors of the Scots and Irish were not Celtic. Have a look at this article:

http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/theceltsversion3.msnw (http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/theceltsversion3.msnw)
I understand that about the LGE,NOT being literal...I was just saying that since some claim they came from the Iverni(A celtic tribe) that the names of Iver(ni) and Eber come from the same root word...in other words being the same thing,at least from what some say..

So they are Celtic,but they didnt speak Gaelic,so they spoke a Brythonic language?

Thanks for the link....

Kern

August 20th, 2005, 05:46 PM

Im reading that article you wrote now Croman..Very interesting!!!

CromanMacNessa

August 20th, 2005, 06:04 PM

I was just saying that since some claim they came from the Iverni(A celtic tribe) that the names of Iver(ni) and Eber come from the same root word...in other words being the same thing,at least from what some say..

So they are Celtic,but they didnt speak Gaelic,so they spoke a Brythonic language?

Feasgar math a rithist, Kern.

The name "Iuerni" may not be from the same root as "Eber." The name "Eber" is of uncertain origin, but is usually given as either from the Hebrew name "Eber" (Genesis XI, 14), or from Hiberno-Latin "Êbernus" (which means "Irishman"). In the first case, it's obviously not related at all to "Iuerni." In the second case, the name would derive from "Iuerni" (and not the other way around). As for "Iuerni," which later became "Érainn," this name is traced back to a Proto-Celtic *Êuernî by T.F. O'Rahilly (who spells it *Êvernî). The Proto-Celtic Lexicon gives no hints about the suffix *eu- or *ev-, but it could possibly be derived from Proto-Indo-European *esu- ("good" --- compare Greek "eus," "eu-" meaning "good, well"). O'Rahilly traces the second part of the word to a root *ei-, from Proto-Indo-European *oitos ("motion, course").

The language these people spoke before adopting Primitive Irish was "Ivernic," a dialect of Gallo-Brittonic. This is, it should be noted, somewhat controversial. Many linguists these days don't believe that Ivernic ever existed (though Sanas Cormaic gives two words from the language as examples).

CromanMacNessa

August 20th, 2005, 06:11 PM

As for "Iuerni," which later became "Érainn," this name is traced back to a Proto-Celtic *Êuernî by T.F. O'Rahilly (who spells it *Êvernî). The Proto-Celtic Lexicon gives no hints about the suffix *eu- or *ev-, but it could possibly be derived from Proto-Indo-European *esu- ("good" --- compare Greek "eus," "eu-" meaning "good, well"). O'Rahilly traces the second part of the word to a root *ei-, from Proto-Indo-European *oitos ("motion, course").

And this name *Êuernî is probably based on the Name of the Goddess Ériu (from *Êueriû, which, O'Rahilly suggests, means something like "the regular traveller") Who, according to O'Rahilly, is "the sun-goddess" --- EIHM p. 297).

Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill

August 20th, 2005, 10:06 PM

You need to start a different thread about this topic...

Nah....there is a whole discussion on language earlier in this thread. And I find that considering this is dealing with the history of the Scotti that it's perfectly applicable to the thread.

Please continue. I'm finding the discussion quite interesting.

Kern

August 21st, 2005, 06:25 AM

Okay,so the Irish & Scots were originally a Brittonic tribe that spoke Iverni(as some say)then later adopted Old Irish(Gaelic)...Okay,but this doesnt altar the fact that when the Scots(Irish)tribes that created DalRaita in Scotland where at that time Gaelic,because they spoke Gaelic..Also when the Romans came in contact with them they called the people of Scotland and Ireland Scoti,which I read means a Gaelic Speaker.This is all very interesting,but Im concerned more with the Gaelic era of the Irish and the Scots.

Thanks Cromac for the info and the link to your site..Im learning things I did not know about the origins of the Irish Tribes....

Oh one more thing,One time yrs ago I read that the Scots spoke Erse,whats that?

CromanMacNessa

August 21st, 2005, 07:56 AM

Okay,so the Irish & Scots were originally a Brittonic tribe that spoke Iverni(as some say)then later adopted Old Irish(Gaelic)...

Madainn mhath, Kern.

More precisely, the Dál Riata were originally a Gallo-Brittonic túath who spoke Ivernic, and later adopted Primitive Irish (which eventually became Old Irish).

Okay,but this doesnt altar the fact that when the Scots(Irish)tribes that created DalRaita in Scotland where at that time Gaelic,because they spoke Gaelic..

That's not certain. It's quite possible that the first Dál Riata who left Ireland and went to Scotland, some 10 generations before the death of Erc, were still speaking Ivernic. In fact, Cormac claims that Ivernic had only recently died out in his area (Munster), and that would mean that Ivernic was still spoken in Munster until the 9th century AD. The most that can be said with regard to the Dál Riata in Scotland is that when the three/six sons of Erc left Ireland and went to Scotland, they appear (from the earliest texts) to have already been speaking Old Irish. However, since no actual manuscripts survive from that time, and since the Goidels were revising the traditional histories in order to promote the idea that they themselves were the rightful rulers of Ireland, there must remain an element of doubt.

Also when the Romans came in contact with them they called the people of Scotland and Ireland Scoti,which I read means a Gaelic Speaker.

Some have claimed that the term "Scoti" (singular "Scotus") or "Scotti" (singular "Scottus") is a Latin word. It was one of several terms used by the Romans to refer the inhabitants of Ireland in general (regardless of what form of Celtic they spoke).

This particular term appears to have been mostly applied to those in the northeast of Ireland (so it's likely that the more precise use of the term would have been to refer to some túath or group of túatha in the northeast of Ireland, and not just to all Irish people, but that some Romans may have used it to refer to all Irish indiscriminately).

The actual, literal meaning of the name is anybody's guess (and for that reason, I point out that some have claimed the name is Latin, not that it is Latin; it could just as easily have been a native term, adapted by the Romans).

Some have suggested/claimed that it means "raiders" or "pirates" or something sib. However, I know no word in Latin that looks like "Scotus" or "Scottus" which has a similar meaning, and my Latin dictionary doesn't offer any clues.

Others have claimed that it comes from Proto-Celtic *skotto- (meaning "leader").

Not knowing a certain origin for the designation, it's a bit difficult to declare the meaning of the term.

But I've never read a suggestion that it was applied to speakers of Primitive Irish (there was no language called "Gaelic" at the time the Romans were in Britannia).

This is all very interesting,but Im concerned more with the Gaelic era of the Irish and the Scots.

There were speakers of Primitive Irish in this era. But before we continue with discussions of language, maybe we should be on the same page, using the same terms to designate the same things. Have a look at this:

http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/celtlanghist.msnw (http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/celtlanghist.msnw)

Thanks Cromac for the info and the link to your site..Im learning things I did not know about the origins of the Irish Tribes....

Not a problem. But the name is Croman, not Cromac or Cormac, eh? "Croman" is modern Gaelic for "Hawk" or "Little Crom" (among other things), and derives from Old Irish "Crommán" ("Little Cromm" or "crommán" = literally "little bent one," a term applied to "a sickle"; the modern Irish form is "Cromán").

Oh one more thing,One time yrs ago I read that the Scots spoke Erse,whats that?

"Erse" means "Irish." It's a term that was sometimes used by Lowlanders in order to paint the Gaelic-speaking Highlanders as somehow alien to Scotland, so it's not used to refer to Gaelic much anymore, except by opponents of Gaelic.

Kern

August 21st, 2005, 10:06 AM

Oops sorry for the name mispelling Croman...

All of this is very intersting and thanks for the mini history lessons...

There were speakers of Primitive Irish in this era. But before we continue with discussions of language, maybe we should be on the same page, using the same terms to designate the same things. Have a look at this:

http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/celtlanghist.msnw (http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/celtlanghist.msnw)

Sorry....when I say Gaelic speaking era of Scotland Im refering to what you have in that article as "Primitive Irish" or "Ancient Goidelic", For Proto-Q-Celtic, we don't know how many divisions there were of this. What eventually (around the Roman era) became "Celtiberian" and what eventually became "Primitive Irish" were apparently two different divisions of Proto-Q-Celtic. I'm told by Alexei Kondratiev that, linguistically, Celtiberian was quite different from Oghamic Irish and reconstructions of what I'm going to call "Ancient Goidelic" (which predated Oghamic Irish) and I welcome any informed discussion of the linguistic differences between Celtiberian and reconstructed Ancient Goidelic in the messageboards of this site.

this is what the Celtic tribes of DalRaita spoke at the time of DalRaita and the Irish branch ? I seem to be missing something,isnt the term Gaelic the modern word for Goidelic ?

What Language did the tribes that were the Irish people that settled in Scotland speak?Primitive/Goidelic Irish=Gaelic.

What were they called and what did they believe?
According to this link (http://members.aol.com/scothist/scot3.html#scots) they were called the Scot/Scoti,they were Christian when they began entering Scotland in the 4th century..
Im mainly interested in Scots(Irish) tribes that settled in Dalraida and the Highlands and Isles.And in their pre christian beliefs...

Around500 AD the Scots came en masse to the Argyll coast and the Isles. This migration differed from the early raids in previous centuries. Unlike the Scoti involvement in the “Barbarian Conspiracy” against the Romans, and other raiding activity, this time they came to settle. The 7th century Irish “Senchus fer nAlban” or Tradition of the Men of Scotland, records the story of the semi-legendary Fergus Mor mac Eirc (Fergus mac Erc), King of the Scoti, who moved in strength from Antrim, in Northeast Ireland, to the southwest area of Highland Scotland (Argyll and Kintyre) and surrounding Isles. They were known as Dal Riata and spoke Gaelic, established a new kingdom in the territory of modern Argyll, which became known as Scottish Dalriada.

... :fpcsucks

CromanMacNessa

August 21st, 2005, 03:35 PM

Sorry....when I say Gaelic speaking era of Scotland Im refering to what you have in that article as "Primitive Irish" or "Ancient Goidelic",

I don't know of any evidence that the Scots ever spoke Ancient Goidelic (this was what became Primitive Irish). There is evidence of Primitive Irish amongst the Scots, in the form of Ogham stones, but we have no idea how widespread its use was.

this is what the Celtic tribes of DalRaita spoke at the time of DalRaita and the Irish branch ?

If you mean Celtiberian, no. If you mean Ancient Goidelic, no. If you mean Primitive Irish (also called Oghamic Irish), maybe.

I seem to be missing something,isnt the term Gaelic the modern word for Goidelic ?

No. "Gaelic" is the modern name of the Goidelic Celtic language of Scotland. Look:

You've got Celtic languages.

All living Celtic languages are divided into two main groups: Brythonic Celtic languages (descended from Gallo-Brittonic, a Celtic language spoken in Gaul and in Britain; sometimes divided in two and called "Gaulish" and "Brittonic") and Goidelic Celtic languages.

There are three Brythonic Celtic languages: Cornish (Kernuak, Kernowek, Kernewek), Welsh (Cymraeg), and Breton (Brezhoneg).

There are also three Goidelic Celtic languages: Gaelic (Gàidhlig, spoken in Scotland and Nova Scotia), Irish (Gaeilge, spoken in Ireland), and Manx (Gaelg, spoken on the Isle of Man).

The term "Ancient Goidelic" is what I myself call the language that grew out of Proto-Celtic and later became Primitive Irish. There is at least one other language that grew out of Proto-Celtic which was also a Q-Celtic language, and that was Celtiberian (spoken in the Iberian peninsula, which is nowadays more or less Spain and Portugal and Galicia). In spite of the myth that the "Milesians" went to Ireland from Spain, Celtiberian and Reconstructed Ancient Goidelic are not similar enough to be considered closely related, which is evidence that suggests that the Goidels did not come to Ireland from Spain. The word "Spain" was used by the Old Irish writers as a synonym for the Otherworld, you must understand. So when they say "Spain," they may mean Spain. But they might mean "the Otherworld" instead of Spain.

What Language did the tribes that were the Irish people that settled in Scotland speak?Primitive/Goidelic Irish=Gaelic.

We don't know for certain, but it was either Ivernic or Primitive Irish. By the time Fergus, Loarn, and Angus went to Scotland, it was either Ivernic or Old Irish.

What were they called and what did they believe?
According to this link (http://members.aol.com/scothist/scot3.html#scots) they were called the Scot/Scoti,they were Christian when they began entering Scotland in the 4th century..
Im mainly interested in Scots(Irish) tribes that settled in Dalraida and the Highlands and Isles.And in their pre christian beliefs...

First, these names "Dál Riata" and "Dàl Riada" must be understood as the names of a Túath. That has two meanings. On the one hand, a Túath is a "Tribe" or "People." Maybe a "population group." On the other hand, a Túath is the territory held by this population group. So the "Scots" did not settle in "Dalriada." Rather, some of the Irish Dál Riata (the population group) migrated to western "Scotland" and took up residence there. The place they lived naturally also became known as "Dál Riata." Over time, as the language in Scotland diverged from the language in Ireland, that became "Dàl Riada." The fact that the Romans called these people "Scoti" or "Scotti" doesn't mean that they called themselves that. As for their religion, regardless of what the Rí believed, the people may or may not have agreed --- and the common people may not have understood the differences fully. We know of no evidence that the Irish were forced to become Christians (unlike other places in Europe), and in fact, Celtic Heathenism went right on being practiced alongside Christianity, and in some cases, even within Christianity (I'm not talking about the "Culdees," who were very Christian; I'm talking about the thin Christian veil cast over Heathen practices so that they could continue).

As for the last quote there, bear in mind that not everything you find on the internet is going to use linguistic terminology properly.

Kern

August 21st, 2005, 03:52 PM

No. "Gaelic" is the modern name of the Goidelic Celtic language of Scotland. Look:

You've got Celtic languages.

All living Celtic languages are divided into two main groups: Brythonic Celtic languages (descended from Gallo-Brittonic, a Celtic language spoken in Gaul and in Britain; sometimes divided in two and called "Gaulish" and "Brittonic") and Goidelic Celtic languages.

There are three Brythonic Celtic languages: Cornish (Kernuak, Kernowek, Kernewek), Welsh (Cymraeg), and Breton (Brezhoneg).

There are also three Goidelic Celtic languages: Gaelic (Gàidhlig, spoken in Scotland and Nova Scotia), Irish (Gaeilge, spoken in Ireland), and Manx (Gaelg, spoken on the Isle of Man).
This is what I was meaning that they spoke Goidelic(Iwas referring to it as Gaelic)- ,yes I was aware of the other Celtic languages...
Where didthis misunderstanding in our posts come from.Ive just always called the language of the Gaelic speaking tribes Gaelic...whether it was modern or ancient..

We don't know for certain, but it was either Ivernic or Primitive Irish. By the time Fergus, Loarn, and Angus went to Scotland, it was either Ivernic or Old Irish.
Thanks! for pointed that out to me...

these names "Dál Riata" and "Dàl Riada" must be understood as the names of a Túath. That has two meanings. On the one hand, a Túath is a "Tribe" or "People." Maybe a "population group." On the other hand, a Túath is the territory held by this population group. So the "Scots" did not settle in "Dalriada." Rather, some of the Irish Dál Riata (the population group) migrated to western "Scotland" and took up residence there. The place they lived naturally also became known as "Dál Riata." Over time, as the language in Scotland diverged from the language in Ireland, that became "Dàl Riada." The fact that the Romans called these people "Scoti" or "Scotti" doesn't mean that they called themselves that. As for their religion, regardless of what the Rí believed, the people may or may not have agreed --- and the common people may not have understood the differences fully. We know of no evidence that the Irish were forced to become Christians (unlike other places in Europe), and in fact, Celtic Heathenism went right on being practiced alongside Christianity, and in some cases, even within Christianity (I'm not talking about the "Culdees," who were very Christian; I'm talking about the thin Christian veil cast over Heathen practices so that they could continue).

As for the last quote there, bear in mind that not everything you find on the internet is going to use linguistic terminology properly.
Understood and thanks again for the info...

/!\