Ogham--trees or not?

[skilly-nilly]

We were having a message exchange about the Ogham, and I wanted to elicit other opinions. I would do a poll, but I am not very techie, so opinions will have to do.

I associate the different ogham (the notches and lines on the axis and their names) with trees. I also use 25 of them. For me, Ogham trees have allusive Spirit meanings that convay messages, and I also perceive them as acting in defined Spirit roles, something like avatars.

Sooooo, Morag (Mòrag Elasaid MacDhòmhnaill) suggested that the Ogham tree associations may have been 'invented' by the guy who made ogham a divinatory tool.

I have a lot of opinions on that, so I wrote an essay about it (exerpted here):

The Ogham, History, and Personal Gnosis

What are these 'Tree Cards'? A divinatory device used by the Druids and passed down, unchanged, by a secret lineage of Pagan Witches until I posted them on my website? No. A completely spurious invention constructed by myself or some other modern flim-flam artist that I derived them from? I like to think not that neither. Rather than answer that question straight up, I would like to drool on first about history, extrapolatory anthropology, and personal gnosis.

The actual history of the pre-Xian Irish is scanty in the extreme; the Druids did not write about their beliefs because of their gease for exclusively oral transmission, and the common people were (like the common people world-wide) largely illiterate. Even without direct writings from the Druids, however, some facts about their religious practices and beliefs were reported by outside observers. It is certain that trees were important to Druidism, and that communication with Immanent Nature was vital to their religious expression. Overwhelming evidence shows that they had a system that they called Ogham, and that the traditional symbolic representations of lines and notches carved on a central vertical axis as well as a form of sign language employing the digits and limbs were both used widely. Although the Ogham is referred to as an 'alphabet' it seems likely that each symbol had a host of allusive meanings, associated symbols, and sequential references that streamed off the alpha significance. Much of what remains of pre-Xian teachings in the form of question and answer triads is allusive, symbolic and almost Zen-like in the implied meaning. It does not seem too great a stretch to imagine that the religious symbology had the same allusive network of meaning. So from history we know that there was an Ogham, that the Irish world-view placed an importance on Nature and trees, and that natural objects were known to exist in both the 'real' world and in a spiritual, symbolic world simultaneously and with significance to the observer.

In both the hero-stories and local tales people are generally represented as frequently entering into interactions with Spirit. The heroes seek out or are sought out by avatars and auguries, and the common people fall into interaction in a haphazard, passive, willy-nilly fashion. Spirit permeates their lives—the hills are hollow, the rings open into elsewhere, the thorn bushes are inhabited, the wells have power. Many of the actions of the people are explained as necessary to propitiate or assuage Spirit. Acknowledgment of the immanence all around them is an integral part of their lives. So, for my part, I am not comfortable in my spiritual practices only following the scanty and austere bits that are attested to in history. I feel that to re-create the attitudes and practices of Pagan Ireland it is more important and better reflects the actuality of the past to be full of belief and interactive direction than to be perfectly in accordance with archaeological dogma.

So how are the Ogham connected to trees? Irish culture has unique perceptions of the Stew of Spirit/the collective unconscious/the Other World that can be expressed as aphorisms and can be allusively connected to trees. For example, one variant of 'The Song of Amergin' has the line “I am the shield for every head”. Shields were made of poplar, a light but densely-grained wood. Poplars are called the whispering trees because the distinctive attachment between leaf stem and twig causes the leaves to move and rustle in the least breath of wind. So the ogham Eadha connects to Poplar and sends the message, “Fears beset you, but don't be afraid.” This message is in accordance with human nature and Irish thought, Eadha is an ogham, and Poplars grew in Ancient Ireland and whispered then and now. I can see a correspondence between these things through reason as well as through personal gnosis, and I see no reason not to use, amplify, and enjoy the correspondence. Even without any archaeological evidence to support it

As a part of my spiritual communication, I also talk to trees, so it is exquisitely meaningful to me personally to have a set of allusive and resonant meanings that I can use to refer to them. The Use Magic of their meanings makes their names and their Name Magic resonate more clearly to me. The fact that I see all of Nature as imminent and numinous assists and is assisted by this usage and understanding both for myself and for the people who ask me, “What is this tree? And what does it say?”

So did I invent the Ogham as trees? Maybe.

In response, Mòrag Elasaid MacDhòmhnaill sent:

I don't know if you've seen this article(she very cleverly made it point, but I don't know how to do that either http://cura.free.fr/xv/13ellis2.html) skilly, but it was written by Peter Beresford Ellis (whom I feel we can confidently trust) about Robert Graves creation of the 'tree calendar' in relation to the ogham. It mentions that much of his research in the White Goddess, where most of our common knowledge of the ogham tree calendar come from, was full of errors and several times dismisses or completely ignores the research and advice of the preeminent scholars in the field, including that of Robert Graves own grandfather, Charles Graves. This article(http://cura.free.fr/xv/11ellis1.html), also by Peter Beresford Ellis covers what we actually do know about early Irish astrology, and might provide a good compliment to the first article.

This third article(http://cura.free.fr/xx/17bouten.html) by Michel-Gérald Boutet with comments by Joseph Monard, also delves into Robert Graves errors. However he also delves into the problems with other so-called tree calendars by other authors.

Hope these articles help, they certainly helped convince me of the possibility that Robert Graves created his ogham tree calendar.


I had read all but last article already, and I feel that it is possible to view the Ogham as referencing trees without also associating them with astrology. So the articles split into 2 threads for me:
Astrology and Trees
As astrology(a study which has never interested me much), the argumentation has merit. Astrology is solar, and Irish time-keeping was lunar. If the Ogham refered to months/time periods at all, they would be lunar months, imo, not the time slots of the signs. Assuredly, the Druids did study the stars. Other contemporary-with-them scholars refer to their high level of expertise in the study, but never mention that Druids made the association between trees, Ogham, and astrology.

Contemporary writers DO, however, refer to the importance the Druids placed on trees and, in a confused way, state that they (foolishly or not as per the writer) associated trees with worship. Even today, the concept of bile(sacred trees) is current in Irish thought. Ogham is referred to as an 'alphabet' too sacred for mundane use. I associate 'sacred' trees and the 'sacred' alphabet, without associating them to any calandar designation. If you drop all of the astrological argumentation out of Ellis' essays (point taken) then his arguments against the association of trees and Ogham is less compelling.

He (although a great resourse and good researcher) has his own hobby-horse that he rides pretty hard. I have never found the association between the Vedas and the Druids as amazing as he seems to find it.

Sorry to go on for so long, but hoping that the questions raised are interesting---skilly-nilly

[Ron]

The tradition www.tylwythteg.com (which claims to be indegenous to Wales), incorporates the Ogham alphabet tree relations strongly in their practise. YTT is know for its poor credibility.

Moorag is most likely correct, she's a celt... celt=keltoi=korectoi=correct lol jk.

We use Oghamish symbols to repesent Dynasties, Guilds, sometimes people, in Y Urdd Cymry, yet never are the letters associated with trees. While at the same time we do maintain the Druidic belief that Trees have strong power.

All of this is just my opinion - please don't shite on me for it :P

[Myrddyn Emrys]

Well, first off, it couldn't have been that "sacred" of an alphabet to be used on property markers and Warrior's shields to identify them.:noway:

To the best of my searches on Ogham, I've only seen the tree aspect of it used as a mnemonic tool. I've never used Ogham sticks for divination and never plan to.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

I think one of the biggest problems I have, is that only in France, Switzerland, Italy and Germany do all of twenty of the sacred trees and mistletoe grow. And while that isn't a problem in that the Celtic tribes certainly existed in these regions, that doesn't take into account that while those plants all grow in those areas now it doesn't mean that thousands of years ago when the ogham was in "common" usage, all of the sacred trees and mistletoe grew there. It is highly probable that the current proximity of those trees can also be due to altered plant spread. This is is similar to how people commonly associate the potatoe with Ireland, yet it is not a native plant. There isn't any evidence that I've been able to find that proves all these plants grew in close enough proximity to each other to have warranted them all being combined into the ogham script. The region best represented is the Rhine River Valley, which does actually make sense if you take into account that it is home to the La Tène culture.

But, we should also take into account that the ogham alphabet is commonly thought (by ogham scholars and amateurs) to have been created in southeastern Ireland. It makes little sense for the Celtic tribes in Ireland to use tree associations for trees that aren't even found there. Not to mention that the vast majority of Ogham inscriptions are found throughout Ireland, with lesser numbers in Scotland, Wales, England, the Orkney and Shetland Islands. Again, these are all places that all of the sacred trees/plants are not native. This of course doesn't mean it wasn't used elsewhere; Ceaser in his writings tells us that the Druids in Gaul used it as well. However it wasn't the same script, but a variant thereof.

It seems to me then that the tree associations were added at a later date, though I'm not positive it was Graves.

[mucgwyrt]

Well, first off, it couldn't have been that "sacred" of an alphabet to be used on property markers and Warrior's shields to identify them.:noway:

To the best of my searches on Ogham, I've only seen the tree aspect of it used as a mnemonic tool. I've never used Ogham sticks for divination and never plan to.

Why not, didn't knights used to have the cross on theirs?

Not that I'm disagreeing with anyone (personally I'm wit Morag - she's usually right :spinner: ) I'm just making a point :p

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Why not, didn't knights used to have the cross on theirs?

Not that I'm disagreeing with anyone (personally I'm wit Morag - she's usually right :spinner: ) I'm just making a point :p

Thanks hon, but I'm quite frequently wrong. It happens a lot. When I first started on my path, I actually thought that Witta had historical origins :rotfl:

[mucgwyrt]

At least you now acknowledge that they dont *naming-no-names* :T

[mothwench]

what were the 20 sacred trees again? :huh: anyway, i thought there were 25 or 26?
oh, never mind, i think i know where to look.

edited to add:

It is highly probable that the current proximity of those trees can also be due to altered plant spread.

:uhhuhuh: very true. that's the very reason i'm finding it such a bugger corresponding runes to trees.

lime by the way, is linden (tilia), not the citrus. that's one i've always wondered about, till i read that.

[Myrddyn Emrys]

Not justifying, just hypothesizing, but perchance the "tree associations" have beeen changed over time to match more readily known trees of the time...

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

what were the 20 sacred trees again? :huh: anyway, i thought there were 25 or 26?
oh, never mind, i think i know where to look.

edited to add:


:uhhuhuh: very true. that's the very reason i'm finding it such a bugger corresponding runes to trees.

lime by the way, is linden (tilia), not the citrus. that's one i've always wondered about, till i read that.

The fifth group of five were added at a later date and are known as forfedha, meaning additional signs. They are all dipthongs whereas the original four groups are vowels and consonants.

Here's a list of the original ogham with their tree associations divided into aicme (letter groups):

B Beith Birch
L Luis Rowan
F Fearn Alder
S Sail/Saille Willow
N Nion Ash

H hÚath Hawthorn
D Duir Oak
T Tinne Holly
C Coll Hazel
Q Quert Apple

M Muin Vine
G Gort Ivy
NG nGéatal Reed
ST Straif Blackthorn
R Ruis Elder

A Ailm Silver Fir
O Onn Furze
U Úr Heather
E Edha Poplar
I Iodhad Yew

This is the forfedha

EA Éabhadh Aspen
OI Ór Spindle
UI Uilleann Honeysuckle
IA Ifín Gooseberry
AE Eamhancholl Witch Hazel or Beech

[mothwench]

hmmm, vine... seems odd. could it be they meant something else, some other creeper?
which other ones do you think are not native? i'm not sure what spindle is.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

hmmm, vine... seems odd. could it be they meant something else, some other creeper?
which other ones do you think are not native? i'm not sure what spindle is.

I believe vine refers to grape from everything I've seen. As for those that aren't native, it is vine and silver fir. However, here's an article about it, in case you're interested, which you are of course, else you wouldn't have asked. Origins of the Ogham (http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/ogham/ogh-orig.html)

[mothwench]

well, i also agree with what you say, we had a similar discussion about celtic astrology, remember that one? anyway, i do, however, think that this article is over-analyzing things here:


Botanical evidence - Nevertheless, archaeological evidence points to the Indo-Europeans originating in the steppes north of the Black and Caspian seas. Trees were very uncommon in these grasslands. They might have seemed even more magical for that reason, but most of the ogham trees do not occur there.

just because the indo-european peoples originated from there, does not mean the ogham originated there even if it's of indo-european origin. because these people migrated all over the place. this is hypothesising that the evolution of the indo-european peoples happened simultaneously with the invention of ogham.
know what i mean? i don't know how else to put it, i realise it might be a bit confusing.

edited to add: i'm actually very surprised that the grape vine is native to germany. i had ruled it out of my rune correspondences, because i had thought the romans brought it in with them. :confused:

edited again: okay, forget what i said earlier:

Thus, the traditional set of ogham trees seem to be resolutely Celtic, although not necessarily a heritage from the early Indo-Europeans. Evidence exists (from correspondences such as the holly and mistletoe above) for other, perhaps non-Celtic tree traditions in Europe. Whether these "alternate" trees had equivalent symbolic meanings is largely conjectural, although Graves has made a strong case for several.

but how do they get the idea now that the celts did not know holly and mistletoe?


If we substitute Quercus ilex for Ilex aquifolia as holly, and Loranthus europaeus for Viscum album as mistletoe, Italy is the only country with all the species, and Britain and Ireland have even fewer.

why would they want to do that? :huh:

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

I'm not sure why the substions at all. Left me scratching my head too.

I don't think he said they didn't know holly and mistletoe. Perhaps he was saying that it wasn't native to the British Isles, and thus they "island" Celts wouldn't have known it. Again I'm not sure.

As for the point he made about the IE origins in the steppes, I think he was merely saying that they couldn't have originated there with the Celtic peoples, so the Ogham would have instead originated somewhere else that they had migrated too.

One of the things I find interesting is that a lot of the information I've read seems to point that the ogham script actually shares a lot in common with greek and might be related in some way to that language. In fact the name ogham is linguistically similar to the Greek ogmos, which translates as furrows. Ogham engravings certainly look much like furrows.

[skilly-nilly]

I've never used Ogham sticks for divination and never plan to.
If you had a set of Ogham sticks, what would you use them for? Stirring drinks?

[skilly-nilly]

I believe vine refers to grape from everything I've seen. As for those that aren't native, it is vine and silver fir. However, here's an article about it, in case you're interested, which you are of course, else you wouldn't have asked. Origins of the Ogham (http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/ogham/ogh-orig.html)

I had seen that map of the distribution of trees once before but had neglected to save it. I was glad to see it again :clapping:

I went looking for it this morning, thinking about posting and, of course, I couldn't find it at all, but other nice things. So now I come back to it and want to join in the native/non-native line of thought, and I can't find the attractive photo of the one native Irish pine species that I found this morning. I was able to locate this:

http://www.nativewoodtrust.ie/international_redlist.html

"Scots Pine Pinus Sylvestris Scots Pine of native Irish stock is considered by many academics to be extinct. Although the species is found widely in Ireland, the fashion for planting trees of exotic stock (which favoured the planting of Scots Pine from Scotland throughout the 18th century) has continued in Ireland until the present day. It is possible that some existing stands or individual trees of Scots Pine are native, but it is currently impossible to verify this. Scots Pine is the only pine tree native to Ireland. The only other native coniferous trees are Juniper (Juniperus communis) and the Yew (Taxus baccata)."


The photo I found on some other site was pleasing to me because I had visualized 'Pine' as looking like the Red Pine here in Canada, which was just what the attractive photo looked like.

Spindle is the common name of a European tree (that I am not familiar with). I read about it in some tree reference once (that I also can't now find) and the blurb stated that because of some property of the wood it was used for spindles, ref Sleeping Beauty et al.

I also use 'Bramble' or berry vine (as in rasberry thicket/brier patch) as the Muin/Vine ogham, so I feel ok there. I use some diferent trees for the last 5 vowels......

Which brings me to what I was thinking about this morning before I began looking at photos of native Irish species (side thought; I think that 'bog oak' is a particular tree, different from 'bog wood' ie wood found preserved in a bog).

What I feel that I do using Ogham and connecting it to trees is, to my perception, much like what the GingerWitches are doing associating different woods to different runes. It's not what the Norse did, but it forms association chains that make the meanings of the individual runes more explicit to your use. Using symbols that have long term use, like runes or ogham, makes (still imo) the communication across the veil easier.

I could use a completely made-up set, like the Animal Oracle or the ones from the Oak Ash and Thorn book or make up a set myself, but I find it's much harder to punch through a good line of communication, and much easier if I use some of the Energy already laying about for push. Another way of saying this would be that the ley line to StoneHenge is a lot bigger than the one to the circle in my backyard although they are made up of the same stuff. And so easier to travel on.

As I said when we were talking about woods and runes, I think that "What is your argumentation" is a good question when talking about personal gnosis, but "Archeological evidence does not support your argumentation" kind of misses the point. Supportive archeological evidence is nice (example:Nantonos relates the folklore about Blackthorn bringing arguments into a house and Blackthorn, for me, stands for 'Trouble coming') but lack of it is not dismissive.

So very little is known about what Druids and the people they lived amongst actually did and believed that negating archeological evidence is rare. And, as I explained, I think it is far more important to have a very immediate and every-day communication with the Numinous World than to be historically limited. Exuberance is more Irish than perfect correctness, as I see it.

I am worried to find that Beech is a non-native species (although the blurb uses 'hundreds of years') so now I'm going back out into google to try to find out when it was introduced :sailing: , skilly-nilly

[mothwench]

i think i read that beech is one of the younger trees in evolution. i think they emerged as late as 4000 b.c.e. it could well be that if they were not around in britain at that time, it might not mean they weren't native, it could just mean they hadn't reached the british isles yet in their course of evolution.


edited to add: :graduate: now i see what you mean about googling the same thing twice. i can't find the page about evolution of trees. :twitch:

[mucgwyrt]

And what's Furze??
We dont get Lime here, or I dont think so anyway... or Vine.

[mothwench]

i think furze is the same as gorse?

according to this site: http://www.the-tree.org.uk/BritishTrees/TreeGallery/treegallery.htm

both lime (http://www.the-tree.org.uk/BritishTrees/TreeGallery/lime_broadc.htm) and beech (http://www.the-tree.org.uk/BritishTrees/TreeGallery/beechc.htm) are native british trees.


edited to add: if you click on the article at the top of the beech page, the one that says more about beech or something like that, there's lots more info about all the uses for beechwood, beech tree mythology and lore, etc. again though, i don't know how much of it is robert graves influenced, he was mentioned in the article.
but now i think i know what you mean, skilly nilly, about them not being native to britain, also now it makes sense that i read they were one of the younger trees, according to the article, it is but only in the british isles.


Was the Beech associated by our Pagan ancestors
with the new dominating culture?
When we look at the spirit of the Beech wood through the eyes of our Pagan Ancestors, whose predominantly oral culture was threatened and often forcefully suppressed by the new Christian spirituality, it is possible that the lack of vibrant folklore connected with this tree was due to the fact that .....SNIP (go here if you want to read the whole thing: http://www.the-tree.org.uk/BritishTrees/beech5.htm ).... Imagine: you are a nature-worshipping tribal native in Britain with a poetic, metaphorical mind in the days when Christianity first starts to colonise your land and your people. You have always learned your wisdom and your stories from the living landscape. You look around you in the landscape for an analog to try and understand what is happening. The Beech forests provide such an analog. They were an almost perfect symbol to tell the story of a new invading civilisation. In the British Isles there was the additional coincidence that the Beech forests flourished in the millennia around the birth of Christ. (<--- the answer is yonder. :colorful: ) The fact that the beech had such an elegant, aristocratic appearance would have enhanced your reluctance to embrace the tree any longer, since it was historically often the squires and the noblemen who first pledged allegiance to the new faith in return for favours and then required the commoners to follow suit.

of course, this symbology, if it's correct, can only apply to the celtic pagans, as the norse were not adverse to writing and did use beech-staves and beech bark as writing surfaces.
edited to add: question: were the continental celts also as adverse to writing as the ones on the british isles?

[mucgwyrt]

Well I never :D
Can't say I've ever seen a lime though...

Oo its all coming back to me now - I had a dream about a huuuuge crab apple tree last night :huh:

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Well I never :D
Can't say I've ever seen a lime though...

Oo its all coming back to me now - I had a dream about a huuuuge crab apple tree last night :huh:

Lime = Linden...not actual limes hon. :kooky:

More dreams eh? Are you going to tell us about it?

[mucgwyrt]

I know, but I've still never seen any :p

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Oh....fine then. :razz:

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

So very little is known about what Druids and the people they lived amongst actually did and believed that negating archeological evidence is rare. And, as I explained, I think it is far more important to have a very immediate and every-day communication with the Numinous World than to be historically limited. Exuberance is more Irish than perfect correctness, as I see it.

First an aside, skilly just how did you pick your user name?

As for the above paragraph. I agree completly with your arugement that we shouldn't throw something out simply because archaeology doesn't support it. There is something to be said for personal gnosis. However, the trees correspondenses don't really make much sense to me. So when I combine it with the archaeological suggestions that all of these trees weren't native to Ireland, or in my case Scotland, even though the ogham writing does seem to have been created in southern Ireland, it leads me to not utilize them in my practices. The research seems to support me in my confusion over the tree associations.

Of course, I often wonder if we can skew archaeology and historical research to suit us just as much as we can skew polls and the like to support our pet theories. That's something to think on.

[mucgwyrt]

What evidence did Graves use to justify his use of tree associations and divination methods?
Or was it more of a "because I said so" justification?!

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Graves relied mostly on 19th century translations, usually very poor ones at that, as well as forged or counterfeit texts. He was also inclined more towards 18th and 19th century Welsh romantics than series scholars of Celtic history. His main sources were Edward Williams, more well known as Iolo Morganwg; Edward Davies; and Ruairí Ó Flaitheartaigh (Roderick O'Flaherty).

The first two, like Graves himself,were much better poets and dramatists than historians or scholars. Iolo Moganwg was not at all adverse to falsifying Welsh history, and did so liberally. It wasn't until the middle of the 19th century when real organization in the field of Celtic studies began to take place was it realized/learned that he had done so and his ideas/fabrications dismissed. Davies, also known as 'Celtic' Davies, had only glancing knowledge of modern Welsh, and almost none when it came to Middle Welsh. He was completely unqualified to translate what historical documents they did have. Like Morganwg, his work has not been taken seriously (except by Graves) since the mid-19th century.

O'Flaherty on the other hand was an Irishman, who took it upon himself to write a history of Ireland entitled Ogygia: seu Rerum Hibernicarum Chronologia, or in English, Ogygia: or a Chronological Account of Irish Events. This document was published in 1685 in Latin, and in English 1793. The book was immediately called into question for it's poor scholarship by emminent scholars of the time. He included in this history an essay on understanding the ogham. He relied upon the Auraicept na nÉces (The Scholar's Primer) for his information. This is where the tree associations come into play. The Auraicept is claimed to have been written in the 7th century by Longard. However the earliest surviving copy of the Auraicept is found in the 14th century Book of Ballymote. The Book of Ballymote was compiled in 1390, seven centuries after the Auraicept is said to have been composed.

O'Flaherty's essay rendered the ogham as having thirteen consonants and five vowels. This is much different than what the Book of Ballymote tells us. According to it, there are twenty-five ogham in total; fifteen consonants, five vowels, and the five forfeda or added letters. Graves however, either didn't read the Book of Ballymote original, or like he did with so many reputable scholars and their works, which includes his own grandfather, he chose to ignore the information. He stuck with O'Flaherty and his thirteen vowels and five consonants because it suited his pet theory better.

Here is a quote from Graves himself when informed that he should not rely upon O'Flaherty: "'When recently I wrote on this subject to Dr MacAlister, as the best living authority on Oghams, he replied that I must not take O'Flaherty's alphabets seriously: 'they all seem to me to be late artificialities, or rather pedantries of little more importance than the affectations of Sir Pierce Shafton and his kind.' I pass on this caution in all fairness, for my argument depends on O' Flaherty's alphabet... I feel justified in supposing that O'Flaherty was recording a genuine tradition at least as old as the thirteenth century AD.' "

It is even more surprising that he would pass on this advice when you take into account that Grave's grandfather, Charles Graves, had been the foremost expert on ogham while President of the Royal Irish Academy. At that time, Charles Graves had already dismissed the tree alphabet as completely fictionalized. Note, not the actual ogham, just it's tree associations.

You can read a more detailed account here: The Fabrication of Celtic Astrology (http://cura.free.fr/xv/13ellis2.html) by Peter Berresford Ellis, a well-known expert in the field of Celtic studies. Yes it does deal more with Celtic tree astrology, but I think that much of the information is also shown to relate to the ogham alphabet as well.

Anyhow, the fact of the matter is that Robert Graves used very poor sources for his information, and in fact ignored the advice of reliable experts in the field, all to further his own pet theory. We can't even trace the tree associations with the alphabet back further than the 14th Century manuscript the Book of Ballymote. The article also explains much more about the suppossed tree associations, and I won't even attempt to parphrase it, except to say that from what I read I think it puts to rest the theory that the tree associations were historically used by pre-Christian Celts. Which is not to say that we can't use them as valid associations, just that they don't have much place in disussing the origins of the ogham.

And I take back what I said about Robert Graves creating them. While he did create Celtic tree astrology, the ogham tree associations were more likely created by someone else further back in history for reasons of their own.

[skilly-nilly]

First an aside, skilly just how did you pick your user name?

As for the above paragraph. I agree completly with your arugement that we shouldn't throw something out simply because archaeology doesn't support it. There is something to be said for personal gnosis. However, the trees correspondenses don't really make much sense to me. So when I combine it with the archaeological suggestions that all of these trees weren't native to Ireland, or in my case Scotland, even though the ogham writing does seem to have been created in southern Ireland, it leads me to not utilize them in my practices. The research seems to support me in my confusion over the tree associations.

Of course, I often wonder if we can skew archaeology and historical research to suit us just as much as we can skew polls and the like to support our pet theories. That's something to think on.


Shew :chattin: , you raise complex issues! But that's why I/we are on a public board--questioning clarifies thought. But, once again, it's not a short answer.

There is a slightly archaic tern 'willy-nilly' (or will-he, nill-he to be more archaic) meaning 'without one's own volition'. The term 'skilly' means, roughly, 'good at the Craft'. As I have mentioned before, I am a personifier; that is I act as a conduit for a Goddess. Maybe permit myself or allow myself or dedicate myself convays more information.....

Although one gets better at it with practice it isn't really a 'skill' but it qualifies me as 'skilly'. The Scottish perspective, I believe, would be 'fey' in the archaic usage, not as signifying the Little People. So what I mean by my user name is that I am 'skilly' without volition on my part.

This also partly explains my usage of trees and Ogham. Ogham Trees are out there as a part of the superficial glittery layer that is mostly dreck that anyone who, starting from not-knowing-anything, begins to research 'Celtic'-ness. In my path, this is also nearly 30 years ago when there is no internet nor general acceptance of Pagan-ness so research is a lot harder and slower. Initally, I felt much the way you seem to (without the great resourses you have brought to bear on it) 'This is mildly interesting, but convoluted, full of woo-woo, and possibly spurious'

So when you say, " However, the trees correspondenses don't really make much sense to me." I see this as a perfectly valid response. Because it didn't make much sense to me either until I actually started talking to trees. To me, the whole world exists in a kind of twinkly back-and-forth way that shifts freely between mundane and Spirit. So, just as I am a personifier, the oak tree in my back yard is a personifier. Who he(the oak tree in my back yard) personifies is referential to Oak Spirit; that is all oaks personify, in their own unique ways, that Spirit. I correspond that Oak Spirit with the Oak King and the ogham Duir and add to it all of the alliterative meanings that roll off my own readings and research.

So I don't start from Robert Graves or P B Ellis and drift into personal interpretation, I start with Imbas and work outward. On the one hand, archeological verification is a good thing. When I receive some insight that is then supported by research, history, or folklore it not only pleases me, but verifies that I have not slipped over the edge. I need the feeling and reassurance that I am contacting the same collective unconscious as others.

On the other hand, archeological negation helps us distinguish the real from the false. When Edain McCoy says (as I have read she has), "I saw the Druids worshipping the Potato Goddess in a vision" I think that history prompts, "Bad vision!" :stomp:
Personifiers, communicants with Spirit, weird fey people all have to be on guard against false vision. One of the safeguards is checking, historically, other peoples' related visions for consistancy because I believe that Spirit is internally consistant as well as timeless and everywhere.

I think that the caveat, "I often wonder if we can skew archaeology and historical research" cuts both ways. There is a lot of what I would call spiritual rasberry :nyah: out there--Spirit enjoys playing jokes on us. So serious research needs to be done or we all dance off into woo-woo. On the other hand, learned men writing dense stuff with incomprehensible diagrams and lots of foot-notes can be flirting with woo-woo just as well. Seriousity doesn't automatically bring truth with it. Learned men seem to wish that the past was a golden time where education brought respect and wealth, but I think from reading folklore that Druids probably squabbled and played practical jokes just as much as the common man did.

So (here is the bottom line at last) when you say, "There is something to be said for personal gnosis." I fall about laughing, not at you, but at the funniness of difference of opinion. I am (irl) a biologist. Often people say to me that they didn't really 'get' biology in school and can't see it as really important. I always answer, "Biology is life." So when you say, "There is something to be said for personal gnosis." :crylaugh: I have to respond, "There is nothing but personal gnosis."


I see your point, though, you are on the side of rational thought and are warning me (with great delicacy and niceness) against craziness.

Sadly, too late--skilly-nilly

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Woo-woo! :veryweird

Love how you came up with your name. It's great, and I've often heard the term willy-nilly, I'm surprised that didn't ever come to mind when seeing your name.


I think that the caveat, "I often wonder if we can skew archaeology and historical research" cuts both ways. There is a lot of what I would call spiritual rasberry out there--Spirit enjoys playing jokes on us. So serious research needs to be done or we all dance off into woo-woo. On the other hand, learned men writing dense stuff with incomprehensible diagrams and lots of foot-notes can be flirting with woo-woo just as well. Seriousity doesn't automatically bring truth with it. Learned men seem to wish that the past was a golden time where education brought respect and wealth, but I think from reading folklore that Druids probably squabbled and played practical jokes just as much as the common man did.

Definitely, it's not like they were some superhumans who never enjoyed life. I'm sure there was lots of practical joking going on along with the serious stuff. Like you said folklore seems to make that point fairly obvious to us.

And again you're write when you point out that scholars are just as likely to flit off into woo-woo. They tend to get these ideas in their heads and will do anything to prove they are right. Even if it means ignoring evidence to the contrary. They seem to be able to pull a lot of BS out of no where.


So (here is the bottom line at last) when you say, "There is something to be said for personal gnosis." I fall about laughing, not at you, but at the funniness of difference of opinion. I am (irl) a biologist. Often people say to me that they didn't really 'get' biology in school and can't see it as really important. I always answer, "Biology is life." So when you say, "There is something to be said for personal gnosis." I have to respond, "There is nothing but personal gnosis."


I see your point, though, you are on the side of rational thought and are warning me (with great delicacy and niceness) against craziness.

See the difference with me is I consider myself a historian (I'm not professionally as I've had a very hard time finding jobs in that field, especially as I've not been able to finish my degree. ~grumbles~) and so I tend to place a lot of stock in history and what we can actually pull from the past. Hence why I find it so important to try and correlate all of my practices and beliefs to history, archaeology, etc. In fact I probably place too much stock in history and not enough in UPG. That's been my downfall spirtually.

What you say about people not getting biology and your response so reminds me of myself, only place the word history in there. I'm constantly hearing how unimportant history is and just confounds me that anyone could think that way. You say biology is life, and I say that without history we are nothing and know nothing. For me there is nothing without history.

And I'm the last person who should warn against craziness. I'm as nuts as they come. :kooky:

[Seren_]

The thing about the ogham that never seems to get mentioned in modern pagan circles is that although it is traditionally associated with trees, this is historically only one of about a hundred different things (or groups) it's associated with.

According to the Book of Ballymote, the ogham is also attributed to different types of sows, bulls, types of agricultural tools, colours, church parishes, to name but a few. These tend to be grouped into specific types within the alphabet - for the trees, there are three groups known as the peasant trees, chieftain trees, and shrub trees. Each letter seems to be attributed something according to whatever fits the letter best. There's beith (birch) for trees, ban (white) for the colours or biale (axe) for tools and so on, and this can include either local variations or something crow-barred in to fit when there's not much choice (like X is always a xylophone when you play the "alphabetical musical instruments game", or Xavier when it's the "alphabetical name game" - they might not be local, but people are aware of them - like they known vines, because that's where they get wine from, even though they might not grow it locally because of the climate). There are doubtless other reasons for specific choices as well, either geographically, socially or more spiritually/esoteric.

In case you're confused, here's an example for the colours (link given below):


COLOUR OGHAM Group B. ban white, liath grey, flann red, sodath fine-coloured, necht clear. Group H. huath terrible, dub black, temen dark grey, cron brown, quiar mouse-coloured. Group M. mbracht variegated, gorm blue, nglas green, sorcha bright, ruadh red. Group A. alad piebald, odhar dun, usgdha resinous, erc red, irfind very white.

The order of the alphabet's the same, just the meaning of each letter is different. A translation of part of the Auraicept naEces can be found at this site here (http://www.shee-eire.com/Magic&Mythology/Ogham/OghamTract/ogtract.htm) if you want to take a look yourself. You could interpret these attributes as any one of the many different ways that pupils employed to help themselves remember the alphabet when learning it (it is a Scholar's primer, after all), or else they may have had different/additional meanings.

As well as having different things attributed to the alphabet, the order, size and style of the alphabet also varied. There are over 90 variations in the Book of Ballymote alone - this includes the amount of letters in the alphabet, the style the letters are written in, and the direction as well. You can see them at the Equinox project here (http://www.equinox-project.com/ogamscales.htm). Click on the pics to take a closer look.

At least four of these different scales (according to the introduction), as they are called, are thought to have "magical purposes" - or if you're skeptical "they have to be magical because we can't think of another explanation". One of these includes Fionn's Wheel, which is used in some circles today as one method of divination. There's an interesting article on that here at the Summerlands (http://www.summerlands.com/crossroads/library/oghamdiv.htm), if somebody hasn't posted the link already...I should say the the Equinox article is old, so parts of it might be very dated.

By and large, the ogham alphabet is a Christian tool, archaeological examples of which only exist from around the fourth/fifth century AD onwards. There may be mention of Druids and so on using ogham (and I personally believe it's very likely that they did, at least towards the end of the "pagan" era), but these largely come from much later Christian sources, not contemporary (like the Druids used sticks with ogham inscriptions on them for divination purposes, in certain mythological tales). It's not uncommon to romanticise the practise of the Druids, especially associating them with something that would have seemed mysterious at the time. Or it could have some truth in it, of course.

There is no hard (archaeological) evidence to show that Druids actually did use the ogham (but if they used wood - yew, according to the Book of Ballymote - then it's just possible it hasn't survived the test of time or been discovered yet), and mostly the Druids are documented as using Latin or Greek when they had to write things down - Gauls in particular, though. In spite of this, there's a kind of conspiracy theory going around that the Druids gave ogham to the native Americans. Oh yes....

Anyway, while there's historical evidence, Graves et al have done a lot to skew the vision of what ogham really is, as others have said.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

:bumpsmili

In case anyone else has more to add.

[mucgwyrt]

By and large, the ogham alphabet is a Christian tool, archaeological examples of which only exist from around the fourth/fifth century AD onwards.
Where are these examples from?
I only ask, because by that point we'd had the romans, and the angles and saxons were beginning their migration... so it may not then be as celtic as we think? :confused:

[Ladyvi]

in my research, one that i had to put aside on a back burner to deal with personal matters, ogham is older than the dirt around it.

the theory i hold is that each tree has a vibrational frequency that corresponds to a musical note. that tree also corresponds to an ogham. what if that the combination of ogham and those trees form a chord or vibrational frequency that opens doors, communicates, or even creates a power vortice.

stones have vibrational frequencies to notes. something melody wrote a book on stones and recorded the corresponding notes. i dont know if the same has been done to trees and/or plants.

as i said that research i put on a back burner and hope to get back to it.

continueing the theory. what if the sacred groves that had certain trees in it. live where used for this purpose. just a thought folks.

[Nantonos]

There is no hard (archaeological) evidence to show that Druids actually did use the ogham (but if they used wood - yew, according to the Book of Ballymote - then it's just possible it hasn't survived the test of time or been discovered yet), and mostly the Druids are documented as using Latin or Greek when they had to write things down - Gauls in particular, though.

Latin or Greek *letters*, yes (like we are doing in this thread, written in the English Language in Latin letters). Not Latin or Greek *languages*, necessarily - both scripts were used to write Gaulish..

[Tullip Troll]

what if the tree association and colour association were just like what we have on our Grade one walls...A apple b Bee...lol Thousands of years from now they will be humming Aaaaaa in front of an apple in hopes of something great.

I have really enjoyed what you have all written and it's inspired me to go look some of this up. I love that ; )


MheraPai

[Seren_]

Where are these examples from?
I only ask, because by that point we'd had the romans, and the angles and saxons were beginning their migration... so it may not then be as celtic as we think? :confused:

Urmmm...Archaeology? : :ack: Sorry, crap answer.

The dating issue is one of those accepted "facts", which I'm sure are still accepted, but aren't necessarily well referenced - off the top of my head. The inscriptions mostly coincide with early Christian architecture - crosses, for example, as well as buildings, fortifications, Pictish stuff etc. There is definitely a debate about whether or not the ogham inscriptions themsevles are truly Celtic - these two articles for a start (that I found after a quick google, anyway):

http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/vikingorkney/warpeace/part2.htm
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba62/feat1.shtml

It seems that most inscriptions are Celtic, but some are undecipherable or perhaps even a mixture of languages. When I went to Dunadd on a fieldtrip, we were told that the ogham inscription was undecipherable to Celtic scholars, but a few locals knew the meaning, having had it handed down as a "family secret" for generations - and they were unwilling to share. Some people assume a Scandinavian influence on the development of ogham (because they're similar to runes), but others see evidence of a Celtic/pre Indo-European mix going on. Nobody's sure.

Having said that, I've not heard of any ogham outside of countries that were definitely linguistically Celtic. Perhaps pressures from other cultures in a social/political/religious sense prompted its development in Celtic countries, but no culture is ever truly isolated from its neighbours anyway; the Celts had extensive trade links with their neighbours before they were ever invaded, for a start, say.


Latin or Greek *letters*, yes (like we are doing in this thread, written in the English Language in Latin letters). Not Latin or Greek *languages*, necessarily - both scripts were used to write Gaulish..

Absolutely; sorry, I was getting ahead of myself... :weirdsmil

[Seren_]

what if the tree association and colour association were just like what we have on our Grade one walls...A apple b Bee...lol

Actually, I think that might be right, as a suggested theory. A mnemonic device? (sp?)

[Ladyvi]

colors .yes . they also gravitate to a particular musical note. not sure if it correlates to the trees vibrational frequency. as far as the age of ogham. it is older than the romans, nomans and saxons. who gave the celts or how did they develope the ogham. several theories. one the shining ones may have gave it to them. two it could have developed as a natural progression of any given civilization for communication. during their fight with romans. they used it marking long sticks or objects to pass information along clan to clan. so the language was already established before roman occupation.

[Myrddyn Emrys]

The sticks were called "pwyll".

[Ladyvi]

lolol thanks myr . i read it somewhere just couldnt remember what they was called :)

[Tullip Troll]

Sometimes I think we make things much too complicated. Maybe they really were, but I think they were more simple.

MheraPai

[Phi]

My impression is musical notes, numbers, and sounds representative of such.


How simple yet complex if our own symbols were at the same time

1, 2, 3 do re me A B C all having the same sound in order?

In addition I might add that it is small wonder that Christianity might have been at first, at least, seen as something almost familiar, for symbols are similar in that the salmon was wisdom and the fish was symbolic to Christians, the apples of life similar to the fruits of Eden and life/death tree, and I note the three in the cauldron as being a symbolic number as well three being the number of the trinity for the Christian.
Early on it may have seemed to have a mystical connection, might it not? And kept the early Celts from originally being as hostile to it as later events shows was warranted.

[Ladyvi]

certain chords have certain affects upon the body as well.. the singing bowls of the buddhist some not only help align the body's chakra points and balance them but also inhance spiritual activities.

what if this similar principal was practiced with the ogham and trees.

[Phi]

certain chords have certain affects upon the body as well.. the singing bowls of the buddhist some not only help align the body's chakra points and balance them but also inhance spiritual activities.

what if this similar principal was practiced with the ogham and trees.
the following is a bit:fofftopic :) , but speaking of chords and chakras, lately I have had back pain that moves from mid-upper to mid lower back
don't recall anything in particular happening to bring it on
my chair is same as used to be when I was teaching and at the computer half of every day and most of every weekend, so it seems to rule out computer sitting strain, doesn't it?

Hey anybody been sticking psychic stuff in my back? any dolls with pins out there? :wtf:
Mmmm...Gotta go and see...my shields have been somewhat lowered since coming to this forum.:huddle:
:hehehehe: Still watching my back, Lady?

[Ladyvi]

of course dear. but your worried about something.. and your not taking care of yourself very well. something is eating at the house too. and your angry at your husband something small a pet peave maybe but it irks you. all these things culmanate physicially. get a good message. reconcile the worries. cleanse yourself and the house well. including reorganizing the closets. and talk to your husband. you may find things get better.

[Phi]

of course dear. but your worried about something.. and your not taking care of yourself very well. something is eating at the house too. and your angry at your husband something small a pet peave maybe but it irks you. all these things culmanate physicially. get a good message. reconcile the worries. cleanse yourself and the house well. including reorganizing the closets. and talk to your husband. you may find things get better.Not taking care of me is pretty standard..so much to do...so much to learn! I'll just make do with a bologna sandwich! I know, gotta fuel the brain...
Not much eating at the house/apt here, but we are in a transition stage now, looking for a house in MD via computer going there end of the month to buy. So you're not too far off target, this apartment will soon be vacant.
Closets haven't had time to get messy since we've only been here 3 months! but when the movers come I'm sure the closet stuff will get all wrinkled again in those wardrobe boxes.
Can't think of a thing I'm mad at hubby about...It is irritating to have to follow him around the country I suppose, but I kinda signed on for that myself and at least we're moving in the right general direction (East.) He's not much on psychic stuff, but he does not try to tell me not to be... oh well... He's a really good guy and sweet as can be to me.
Maybe it's partly the stress of moving again. I really do hate moving. :sick:

[Ladyvi]

could be dear .. could very well be . but i cant help but pick up that you sort of wish he be more in one place. i hate moving too. hopefully my next move will be a really good one. my spouse's parents are getting a property in kentucky. they have asked us to move with them even to the point of helping us put a house on said property. we are seriously concidering it. it will be a year or two before this happens.

[Tangerines]

Having studied Old Irish, the language Ogham was created to record in, I'd have to say that I first and foremost associated the different Oghama with letters, and secondly with trees. The trees, as far as language studies go, actually make it easier to remember which letter is which, sometimes, not that Ogham is a particularly hard alphabet to memorise.