PDA

View Full Version : Celto-Germanic Eclectic Reconstructionist



Nantonos
September 11th, 2004, 02:16 AM
Not a contradiction in terms.

Of the three parts of Gaul, the northernmost part (the Belgae) were stated by Caesar to be Germaic and to have crossed over from east of the Rhine.

Many followers of the Celtic goddess Epona were germanic, from the Bataviii tribe in the Rhine delta (famous for swimming across rivers, with horses, in full battle dress).

An area of Germaniia, then called the Agri Decumantes, was gradually annexed and fotified by Rome to shorten the boundaries of Empire by joining the Rhine and Danube. The original population (then called germanic, although living close to the original Celtic heasrtland north of the Alps) was supplemented by settlers from further west in Gaul. After the Agri Decumantes were abandones in 260, a germannic confederation (the Allemani) lived there; some of them were federated with rome (the foederati).

That area today (alsace and Lorraine) has a major city Strassbourg (its in France, which the Germans call Frankreich) previously called Straßburg (it was in Germany, which the French call Allemagne) and before that was in France .... the inhabitants are known for being trilingual, speaking Alastian (also the name of a dog, called an Alsatian in the UK and a German Shepherd, in the US), and German, and French.

Ok enough introduction and justification.

This thread is therefore for those historically-inspired paths where Celtic and Germanic are either mixed, or have not really separated, or where Archaeologists cannot really tell the difference. Shaking off 19th century nationalist perspectives on archaology and history, we construct our own 21st century path - eclectic but based on the best and soundest historical sources.

ancestral_lee
September 11th, 2004, 05:47 AM
sounds interesting - nice to see someone who is willing to accept that the 'celts' arent some set in stone thing from our past that are all pure and wonderful blah blah blah.... they were a huge collection of peples with differnt ideas and ways of being but with some common threads :)

nice one. :viking:

skilly-nilly
September 12th, 2004, 12:01 PM
Not a contradiction in terms.

This thread is therefore for those historically-inspired paths where Celtic and Germanic are either mixed, or have not really separated, or where Archaeologists cannot really tell the difference. Shaking off 19th century nationalist perspectives on archaology and history, we construct our own 21st century path - eclectic but based on the best and soundest historical sources.


How about the areas around the Irish Sea where the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Danes mingled with the proto-Irish? I'm in for that!

:elf: :viking: :fprtyman3 , skilly-nilly

Nantonos
September 12th, 2004, 12:26 PM
How about the areas around the Irish Sea where the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Danes mingled with the proto-Irish? I'm in for that!

:elf: :viking: :fprtyman3 , skilly-nilly

Why do you call them proto-Irish at that date (what, 6th to 10th centuries)?

skilly-nilly
September 12th, 2004, 12:35 PM
Why do you call them proto-Irish at that date (what, 6th to 10th centuries)?


Not just the peoples that actually lived in what was to become the Rebublic, but the ethnically related peoples that lived on the island itself and also the mainland, Cornwall, etc. As well as the peoples who just stayed there and mingled...

"God bless the poor Welshman,
He'll never be free--
But Weeee-re entirely surounded by waaater"
Irish Traditional Song

:foh: , skilly-nilly

TYRRHENUS
September 13th, 2004, 02:29 AM
Would this include the Deae Matres? Or were they strictly Celtic?
If they would be included in this path, can someone tell me who they were? (Yes, I know: deae matres = mother goddesses, I mean their names.)

Nantonos
September 13th, 2004, 09:24 AM
Would this include the Deae Matres? Or were they strictly Celtic?

It would definitely include them, a prime example of Celto-Germanic deities. Indeed, the only discussion might be whether they had any Celtic component..


If they would be included in this path, can someone tell me who they were? (Yes, I know: deae matres = mother goddesses, I mean their names.)

We know a few of them. I posted somewhere about one - the Goddess Vagdavercustis
http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=51935&highlight=Vagdavercustis
http://www.mysticwicks.com/photoalbum/displayimage.php?album=259&pos=6

Many Germanic people in the Roman cavalry alae worshipped the Matres Campestres (mothers of the parade ground). It has been asserted that she was exclusive to the Equites Singulares Augustii but there is also a dedication on an altar by Valerius Nigrinus, dupli(carius) of ala (I) Tungrorum. RIB 2140

Then again some are wildly generic, like the altar raised to Matres Italae Germanae Gal(lae) Brit(annae) by Antonius Lucretianus, beneficiarius consularis. RIB 88. Interesting though because it implies that some commonality was seen with Matres from these four areas.

I sometimes wonder of these Germanic deities became the Vanir, as people from the north and east moved into Germania Libera to become the 'Germanii' who would participate in the fall of the Roman Empire. Those Germans of the fourth to sixth centuries were not the same peoples as the Germans from the first century. The story of the assimilation of the vanir by the Aesir and the destruction of Vanaheim might well recount the absorption of the earlier Germans (and their deities) by the later ones.

Kern
September 13th, 2004, 08:13 PM
Thank You!You must have read my post on Shouting in the Dark(lol j/k).But I did make a post on there that stated that I am drawn to some things Celtic and some things Teutonic.But kept having people tell me that I cant mix them or the pantheons because that was to wiccan.I hope to learn alot from this thread,for from other posts It appears you know what you speak of. :thumbsup:
But I am mainly intersted in the Celtic ways of Britian and Irelans and the Anglo Saxons.

TYRRHENUS
September 14th, 2004, 02:51 AM
Wow, thanks Nantonos.
...like the altar raised to Matres Italae Germanae Gal(lae) Brit(annae) by Antonius Lucretianus, beneficiarius consularis.As much as I hate reading (or trying to read) inscriptions, this one is very interesting. Thanks again.

Nantonos
September 14th, 2004, 03:00 AM
Wow, thanks Nantonos.As much as I hate reading (or trying to read) inscriptions, this one is very interesting. Thanks again.

OK well I should give the full inscription then

Matrib(us) /
Italis Ger/manis /
Gal(lis) Brit(annis) /
[A]ntonius /
[Lu]cretianus /
[b(ene)]f(iciarius) co(n)s(ularis) rest(ituit)

The late 1st/early 2nd century altar dedicated by Antonius Lucretianus was found in Jewry Street, Winchester, in 1854. The original is now in the British Museum. The miseum at Winchester has a fibreglass cast of the altar, though it is not on
display at present.
pers. comm Dr G T Denford,
Museums Curator, Winchester Museums Service
12 April 2002

Ron
September 14th, 2004, 04:20 PM
sounds interesting - nice to see someone who is willing to accept that the 'celts' arent some set in stone thing from our past that are all pure and wonderful blah blah blah.... they were a huge collection of peples with differnt ideas and ways of being but with some common threads :)

nice one. :viking:
I agree with *gasps* lee.

Nantonos
September 15th, 2004, 12:00 AM
I agree with *gasps* lee.

Im sorry that this thread is generating an uncomfortable amount of agreement among posters .... :whistle:

Ceffyl
September 17th, 2004, 02:03 AM
What a wonderful thread topic! Thank you for starting this, Nantonos. An area we both share a keen interest in.

Funny you should mention Alsace-Lorraine, specifically Strassbourg. My Mom's and Dad's families were from there.

I've often wondered if the cultural context of Strassbourg of today, for example, might have been similar under Imperial Roman rule. Large cities today have diverse populations with an influx of immigrants mingling with the native populations, just as Roman towns in ancient Alsace would have had influxes of Gauls and Germans as well as Roman citizens. The resulting religious practises would have been a fusion with elements from each culture blended according to the individual's tastes and quite possibly performed in the accepted Roman fashion (1).

How can we, looking back at this time period, decipher Gallic and Germanic elements from documented religious rites framed in the accepted Roman religious rituals?

Part of it comes back to the role history plays in your modern day religious rites. Is the utmost importance how things were done in the past or how things can be adapted to suit modern times while still honoring the past?

(1) G. Woolf. Becoming Roman. The Origins of provincial civilization in Gaul, Cambridge University Press 1998.

Kern
September 23rd, 2004, 02:41 PM
Calendar (http://www.celticnz.co.nz/Coligny/ColignyPart1.htm)

Seren_
September 29th, 2004, 02:48 PM
Question:

When did the Gauls become the Gauls? As in, the term seems to be used in various sources in a fairly vague way, applying it to the area referred to in any "ancient" time, rather than the actual Gauls themselves (the political, not geographical entity), if you see what I mean. (?) What time are we looking at when the Gauls emerged?

I'm guessing that the timing would be along the lines of when we first see them referred to as such in the classical literature? I know (well, I've read) that people like Caesar regarded the Celtae/Galli as being pretty much the same thing. Is Hecataeus' early reference to the Keltoi taken to imply Gauls, then? La Tene culture in general?

I'm confused! There's a distinct lack of sources on the web for Gaul that seem reliable, except for the links in your sig, Nantonos.

So can anyone recommend any good books/sources (in English, I'm linguistically challenged). I have a translation of Jean Louis Brunaux's The Celtic Gauls: Gods Rites and Sanctuaries, which is somewhat dated. That's about it.

:abanana:

TYRRHENUS
October 1st, 2004, 03:43 PM
Hey Seren, I tend to focus specifically on Italy, so I admit I am out of my league here. But I think this would depend on the peoples of Gaul themselves... When and where they thought of themselves as a distinct people, if ever.
At any rate they were pretty sophisticated. Caesar tells us that he would communicate with his officers in Greek because the Gauls knew Latin. Pliny the Elder describes the Gauls' use of mechanized agriculture in Natural History 18.296.
And that's all I know on the subject.

Nantonos
October 2nd, 2004, 02:37 PM
The Bavarian Triple Goddess
A study of the cult of the three Bethen
http://www.druidry.org/obod/deities/bavarian_triple_goddess.html

Interesting discussion of some saints (the Bethen) and relationship to the Germanic Berchten and the Roman-Celtic-Germanic Matronae

Nantonos
October 2nd, 2004, 02:50 PM
When did the Gauls become the Gauls? As in, the term seems to be used in various sources in a fairly vague way, applying it to the area referred to in any "ancient" time, rather than the actual Gauls themselves (the political, not geographical entity), if you see what I mean. (?) What time are we looking at when the Gauls emerged?:

Ok so you posted this a bit ago, I saw it soon after, and am in danger of procrastinating into the 'ultimate referenced post' which might be wonderful but also might not happen.

So ..... lets start with Caesar, 58 BCE


All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws.
http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html

Lets look at that in Latin


[1] Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. [2] Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Aabo%3Aphi%2C0448%2C001&query=init.&vers=original

Caesar says that the Romans call those people Galli but that they call themselves Celtae. He also calls the region as a whole Gallia. Note that Caesar was procunsul of Gallia Cisalpina (Gaul this side of the Alps, meaning Northern Italy north of the river Po) but does not include that region in his description of Gaul here.

That isn't a complete answer by any means but is a start....

Seren_
October 2nd, 2004, 08:53 PM
Hey Seren, I tend to focus specifically on Italy, so I admit I am out of my league here. But I think this would depend on the peoples of Gaul themselves...

At any rate they were pretty sophisticated. Caesar tells us that he would communicate with his officers in Greek because the Gauls knew Latin. Pliny the Elder describes the Gauls' use of mechanized agriculture in Natural History 18.296.
And that's all I know on the subject.

Which is the source of my confusion (it's not uncommon in general, so I go with it :D).

Most sources I read say we have no idea of what the Gauls called themselves specifically, as a politicial identity, so we go by the classical terms - Keltoi (c.6 century BC); and later Galatai, Celtae or Galli. They all seem synonomous according to later sources, I just wondered whether it was safe to project the meaning of one word - eg Galli (Latin) back to another like Keltoi (Greek)...if you see what I mean - see below :)?


Caesar says that the Romans call those people Galli but that they call themselves Celtae.

Now, I was aware of this, just wasn't confident of my source...Apparently Diodorus Siculus, Caesar, Strabo and Pausanias all thought that Celtae, Keltoi and Galli or Galatai were synonomous (from The Celts, T G E Powell). This seems to be a Classical assumption which cannot be considered without its political biases at the time they were written...are there any particular trends of thought on this idea these days? This is mainly what I was wondering, I suppose. "Pinpointing the Gauls" (I have a nice map and every'fing _travolta_ )...

Considering you've already buggered up my language tree...:lol: I thought I'd ask...

:smoochypo

Nantonos
October 2nd, 2004, 09:20 PM
Hey Seren, I tend to focus specifically on Italy, so I admit I am out of my league here.
Although northern Italy was at one time called Gallia Cisalpina ... and there were people there who wrote Gaulish in an Etruscan script, called Lepontic.


But I think this would depend on the peoples of Gaul themselves... When and where they thought of themselves as a distinct people, if ever.
I get the impression that they considered each group (nowadays translated as tribe, but that is being questioned - nation might be more appropriate) to be separate and sovereign. So for example the Aedui and the Sequanni would consider themselves separate nations, though they spoke the same language.


At any rate they were pretty sophisticated. Caesar tells us that he would communicate with his officers in Greek because the Gauls knew Latin. Pliny the Elder describes the Gauls' use of mechanized agriculture in Natural History 18.296.
And that's all I know on the subject.
Nothing wrong with admitting the limits of your knowledge.
Also, Gaulish was sometimes written in Greek script (especially in the south). So they were familiar with both Latin and Greek script, but presumably not familiar with Greek words and grammar.
Mechanised agriculture - yes. The Gauls had metal-banded spoked wheels, ox-drawn deep ploughs, and had a type of combine harvester for harvesting corn (wheat); it was pushed by a horse and had a bunch of knives or prongs on the front. It looks as if someone with a scythe then cut the corn whose stalks were thus caught between two blades, like scissors. There is a drawing of one on a stone bas relief from Arlon (in modern Belgium) showing this, on p. 69 of
Roymans, Nico (1996) 'From the sword to the plough: three studies on the earliest romanisation of northern gaul'. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 90-5356-237-0

Ron
October 2nd, 2004, 09:25 PM
Im sorry that this thread is generating an uncomfortable amount of agreement among posters .... :whistle:
LOL... _pino_ _pino_ _pino_

Nantonos
October 2nd, 2004, 10:12 PM
I'm guessing that the timing would be along the lines of when we first see them referred to as such in the classical literature? I know (well, I've read) that people like Caesar regarded the Celtae/Galli as being pretty much the same thing. Is Hecataeus' early reference to the Keltoi taken to imply Gauls, then? La Tene culture in general?


There are three seperable concepts which are often mixed up. The first is Celtic/Germanic/etc as a linguistic label. The second is as a cultural label. The third is as an ethnic or genetic label.

It seems to me that the Romans and the Greeks tended to use geographical labels mostly. They assigned particular peoples to particular geographical areas, expected them to stay there (natural for a city-state civilization like the greeks and Romans).

This is particularly seen in the case of 'German', a label which was used to mean an area bounded by the Rhine to the west, the Elbe to the east, the Alps to the south and the North and Baltic seas to the north. Archaeology tells us that people in the south-west part of that area were culturally Celtic, part of the oppidum-producing La Tène culture; Caesar called them Germans. People like the Treverii and the Ubii were German, and Caesar says that they were proud of their Germanic heritage and also spoke Gaulish. They lived in Gaul, having crossed the Rhine earlier.

In the third and fourth century there was a resurgence of the La Tène material culture in things like fibulae; for a long time archaeologists tried to fit that into a chronology where La Tène stopped dead in 52 BCE; now they accept it as a resurgence. The people in that area were however, by the fourth century, speaking a Germanic language.

Nantonos
October 2nd, 2004, 10:26 PM
Is Hecataeus' early reference to the Keltoi taken to imply Gauls, then?


I confess that I had not heard of Hecataeus before your post. I have done a little research meantime. This page has a good introduction and a map. Celtae are shown in one of the four quadrants (the map was as much symbolic as geographical):

Hecataeus of Miletus
http://www.livius.org/he-hg/hecataeus/hecataeus.htm

another useful page, from the Technology Museum of Thessaloniki

HECATAEUS OF MILETUS (fl. 560 - 480 BC)
http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/3/50.html

I also came across this reasonable discussion of te early use of the terms Celt, Gaul, etc which mentions Hecataeus
http://cornellia.fws1.com/new_page_9.htm

the context is Massalia (Marseilles) which is said to be "founded in the land of the Ligurians near the land of the Celts.". The culture in that area is now described as Celto-Ligurian. The Ligurians are variously described as non-Indo-European and as being Celtic in language :) they interest me since I live in that area (the town I live in was an offshoot of Massallia, in 600BCE). Good info on the Ligurians is harder to come by than good info on the Celts. It seems though that the Ligurians were al lalong the coast from modern Barcelona up, across France, and back down the north-west coast of Italy. The Celts then lived on the higher ground inland.

Also interesting that "Hecataeus elsewhere mentions a Celtic town called Nyrax, and this place seems best to be identified with Noreia in the ancient region of Styria in Austria.". This area would then become the Roman province of Noricum.

Lastly and before I forget,

MAKING SENSE OUT OF THE EXPERTS: The divergent nature of 21st Century Celtic Studies.
http://www.angelfire.com/bc/henryknox/celts.htm

Seren_
October 3rd, 2004, 05:33 AM
I confess that I had not heard of Hecataeus before your pos.

Ahh, sorry. I mentioned Hecataeus mainly because he's taken as the earliest historical source who mentions the Keltoi (in the 6th century BC). His works don't survive, but Herodotus drew a lot of his information on the Celts from Hecataeus, and quoting him widely including the word "Keltoi", giving us the earliest surviving reference of the label...And from this we get the idea that their neighbours were aware of the Celts' existence from at least the 6th century BC...

As you say, the classical sources tend to use names as a geographcial label, which can get confusing and aren't always strictly true. I was wondering that if Keltoi, Celtae, Galatai and Galli (all various names for roughly the same people or geographical area :) ) really were synonomous, then we could get a rough date of when the Gauls historically "came into being", so to speak - I was wondering whether the first Celts we hear of are really Gauls, or did Gaul evolve later? It seems I was looking for a clear cut answer where there isn't one :D

Thanks for the links, as well (and thank you Tyrrhenus). Much appreciated.

Nantonos
October 3rd, 2004, 08:23 AM
Ahh, sorry.

Why be sorry? You mentioned a historical source I had not come across. I'm now better informd thanks to you.


I mentioned Hecataeus mainly because he's taken as the earliest historical source who mentions the Keltoi (in the 6th century BC). His works don't survive, but Herodotus drew a lot of his information on the Celts from Hecataeus, and quoting him widely including the word "Keltoi", giving us the earliest surviving reference of the label...And from this we get the idea that their neighbours were aware of the Celts' existence from at least the 6th century BC...

Yes, that seems reasonable. I assume that Hacataeus also mentions the Scythians and that they are distinguished from the Keltoi. From this, Keltoi does not merely mean 'barbarian' or 'non Greek'.


As you say, the classical sources tend to use names as a geographcial label, which can get confusing and aren't always strictly true. I was wondering that if Keltoi, Celtae, Galatai and Galli (all various names for roughly the same people or geographical area :) ) really were synonomous, then we could get a rough date of when the Gauls historically "came into being", so to speak - I was wondering whether the first Celts we hear of are really Gauls, or did Gaul evolve later? It seems I was looking for a clear cut answer where there isn't one :D

Gaul (as the Roman entity) evolved later, but the language called Gaulish was common over the wider area including the danube area. It seems that in the east, they became isolated into little pockets wheras iin the west they consolidated, hence the later geographical distribution.

On the other hand, greater communication between modern scholars in different countries who speak different languages is tarting to show similarities thatwere previously hidden due to partitioned scholarship.

No, its not clear cut.This is why I held off from answering gfor a few days.

mothwench
October 7th, 2004, 11:59 AM
:fpeek:
i'm sorry to burst in with this completely new topic, but i just found out about this last night and i really want to share it with all of you, and maybe discuss. i found a striking similarity between the scottish celtic folklore of the cailleach and the norse practises of celebrating winternights.
from ourtroth:

One of the most widespread harvest-customs of the Germanic folk is the leaving of the Last Sheaf. Rites for this vary greatly. In some areas, the grain-ghost or grain-wight is thought to dwell in the sheaf, and must be chased and either driven out or carefully captured, bound, and brought home. In Jutland, when the Last Sheaf is bound, folk say, "We have captured the hare"; in Fyn and Zealand, they talk about "catching the fox" or "driving the fox out" (Troelsen, Nordisk Bondereligion, p. 72); de Vries cites a number of like examples ("Contributions to the Study of Othin, Especially in his Relation to Agricultural Practices in Modern Popular Lore"), such as the Dutch custom of making a hare-effigy out of grass and flowers at the end of harvesting and having the boy who bears it act as the hare and presently suffer capture (p. 15).

Elsewhere, "(the corn-spirit) is regarded as a supernatural being in human shape and it is identified with a real person at the moment of the cutting of the last sheaf. This person may be the labourer who wields the last stroke of the sickle, or the woman who binds the last sheaf, a stranger accidentally passing by, or even the landlord himself" (de Vries, "Contributions to the Study of Othin", p. 17). De Vries cites the Jutlandic practices of making the girl who has bound the last sheaf dance with a hay figure in the shape of a man (made from the last cartload of grain), who is called her husband, or of wedding the girl to "the Old One". This, he suggests, was originally a sacrifice in which the girl was first killed as "the Old One's" bride; then later, perhaps, "tabooed by virtue of her spiritual relation to the corn-demon and consequently treated as a widow" (p. 18). Troelsen mentions that the person who has bound the Last Sheaf is the butt of unmerciful amusement, and that a maiden who has bound it has to bear it home hanging about her neck and dance with it at the harvest festivities (Nordisk Bondereligion, p. 73). In Dragons of the Rhine, Diana Paxson presents a fictional, but traditionally based and spiritually inspired, rendition of harvest-rites in which Sigfrid is tied to the Last Sheaf and threatened by the scythes of the peasants; Hagano (who is one-eyed and appears in a dark cloak and broad-brimmed hat) then ransoms him with the promise of ale for the harvesters.
more at http://www.thetroth.org/resources/ourtroth/wntnht.html

compare this with the superstitions of bringing in the last sheaf (the cailleach) in scotland, the similarity is astounding.
there's some info about the cailleach on mòrag's scottish recon thread. :thewave:

i just found that really cool. :D

Seren_
October 7th, 2004, 12:46 PM
Hi Mothwench,

Your question about whether or not the Scots tied their last sheaf on the Scottish Recon thread jogged my memory. You might be interested in this (wasn't sure where to post it, but it seemed more relevant here):


The custom of the Last Sheaf was widespread in the scattered arable regions of Wales, many of which were extremely fertile. The Last Sheaf to be cut was treated with special honour, often being decorated in various ways, sometimes taking the form of an anthropomorphic figure, known in the Scottish Highlands as a' Mhaighdean if the harvest had been a good one and a' Chailleach should the harvest be poor or disastrous. A widespread tradition was to decorate it or tie it with coloured ribbons and hang it up in the kitchen of the farmer whose land had been harvested. There it held pride of place until the following spring sowing round about February when it was taken down and given to the horses to eat. The following year the same thing would happen. It was widely known as a corn dolly or a corn maiden but in Wales it was known as the caseg fedi 'harvest mare' or caseg hen fedi, meaning 'end of the harvest mare'. In Welsh speaking Pembrokeshire and the adjoining districts of south Cardiganshire and west Carmarthenshire, also in parts of Caernarfonshire, it was known a y wrach, 'the hag'. - Anne Ross

It's interesting that pretty much the only difference is the animal associations. I know that many parts of Scotland were settled by the Norse, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Cailleach traditions absorbed some Viking flavours, so to speak. But it is intriguing (to me, anyway :D) that it seems so widespread.

Kern
October 12th, 2004, 01:40 PM
The Bavarian Triple Goddess
A study of the cult of the three Bethen
http://www.druidry.org/obod/deities/bavarian_triple_goddess.html

Interesting discussion of some saints (the Bethen) and relationship to the Germanic Berchten and the Roman-Celtic-Germanic Matronae
I just wanted to say thanks Nantonos for posting that link.I enjoyed the article very much.

kaosxmage
October 12th, 2004, 01:47 PM
I apologize that this has to be a quick post, but I must insert a thought here. The idea is not that strange, and not the first time I've heard it. A friend of mine, who happens to be a vehement asatruar, dug through my collection of celtic myths, and much to his brief dismay, he believed that the Norse Vanir were strikingly similar to the Tuatha De Dannan. He has since been hell bent to figure out who influenced who there, but I don't think that's all important. The fact that there are similarities offers up more evidence to the indo european movements.

Anyway, what say all of you to the Vanir vs. Dannan link?

--Kaos

Nantonos
October 12th, 2004, 02:19 PM
I apologize that this has to be a quick post, but I must insert a thought here. The idea is not that strange, and not the first time I've heard it. A friend of mine, who happens to be a vehement asatruar, dug through my collection of celtic myths, and much to his brief dismay,

:ggrief: heh :ggrief:


he believed that the Norse Vanir were strikingly similar to the Tuatha De Dannan.

These sort of parallels seem to spring up once one gets over the idea that the strict boundaries between academic departments - Celtic Studies, Germanic studies, Prehistory, Classical History - are convenient organisational boundaries rather than yawning chasms.


He has since been hell bent to figure out who influenced who there,
Natural, although there are at least four models to look at:
A influenced the later B
B influenced the later A
A and B diverged from an earlier C
A and B had repeated contacts and influenced one another, but not in a treelike divergent way


but I don't think that's all important. The fact that there are similarities offers up more evidence to the indo european movements.

It does, although then one would expect them to be wider spread.


Anyway, what say all of you to the Vanir vs. Dannan link?
I would like to know more about it.

I wonder, but have as yet no real evidence to back the intuition, whether the Vanir represent an earlier religion of a people that Caesar would have called (geographically) Germanic, and archaeologists would have called (culturally) Celtic, the eastern half of the oppidum-producing culture; perhaps linguistically Celtic earlier on and becoming Germanic speaking in pre-migration times, then being in turn submerged under the more northerly and easterly Germanic peoples, Aesir worshipping, as the latter moved towards the boundaries of the Roman Empire at the start of the migration era.

That doesn't give you De Dannan links but does give the Vanir a mixed Germanic/Celtic heritage which might explain some similarities.

As I said this is all musings at this point, not a theory I could defend. yet.

mothwench
October 12th, 2004, 03:18 PM
I would like to know more about it.

I wonder, but have as yet no real evidence to back the intuition, whether the Vanir represent an earlier religion of a people that Caesar would have called (geographically) Germanic, and archaeologists would have called (culturally) Celtic, the eastern half of the oppidum-producing culture; perhaps linguistically Celtic earlier on and becoming Germanic speaking in pre-migration times, then being in turn submerged under the more northerly and easterly Germanic peoples, Aesir worshipping, as the latter moved towards the boundaries of the Roman Empire at the start of the migration era.

That doesn't give you De Dannan links but does give the Vanir a mixed Germanic/Celtic heritage which might explain some similarities.

As I said this is all musings at this point, not a theory I could defend. yet.

there's a theory i read about in a book called "die ersten deutschen" by S. Fischer Fabian. He reckons the war between the vanir and the aesir is a representation of the urnfeld culture (vanir) and the invading indo-european tribes (aesir)
i'll read that chapter again some time in the next few days, and see if there's anything else worth mentioning at this point.

Seren_
October 12th, 2004, 04:06 PM
A friend of mine, who happens to be a vehement asatruar, dug through my collection of celtic myths, and much to his brief dismay, he believed that the Norse Vanir were strikingly similar to the Tuatha De Dannan. [snip]

Anyway, what say all of you to the Vanir vs. Dannan link?

--Kaos

This is a subject that makes the academics uncomfortable as well, I think. But some have drawn comparisons between different gods, like Lugh and Odin. There are unmistakable similarities here according to J Michael Enright in Lady with a Mead Cup: Ritual, Prophecy and Lordship in the European Warband from La Tene to the Viking Age:

1. They are both "chief" gods
2. They are both war leaders (Lugh in Cath Maige Tuired, for example - not necessarily all the time)
3. In their role as war leaders, or their involvement in war in general, they play crucial roles
4. They both fight with a spear
5. They both use magic in battle
6. Odin has only one eye; Lugh closes an eye when he performs magic
7. Lugh is patron of poetry; Odin is patron of the skalds
8. They are both connected in some way to the raven
9. They are both fathers of heroes (Lugh being one of the parents in Cu Chulainn's tri-form birth story)
10. They are both of mixed parentage - Lugh of a TDD father and Fomorian mother; Odin's mother was a giant
11. They are both paired in an antagonistic relationship - Lugh and Bres; Odin and Loki
12. Lugh and Odin both go to war against their maternal kinsmen, each killing the enemy champion - Balor and Ymir respectively

But really, I think influence is likely to go both ways, and periodically as well (like with the Viking settlement at Dublin etc). There's a whole controversy about how influential the Scandinavian people were on the Irish and Scots (Picts, Dalriadan's etc), especially in relation to artwork. Clear similarities can be seen there (it's more a question of who influenced who first...), so I don't see why they wouldn't borrow from each other elsewhere.


Natural, although there are at least four models to look at:
A influenced the later B
B influenced the later A
A and B diverged from an earlier C
A and B had repeated contacts and influenced one another, but not in a treelike divergent way

Or more indirect transmission from A to B through C, as well as direct A-B, B-A?

Nantonos
October 12th, 2004, 05:23 PM
there's a theory i read about in a book called "die ersten deutschen" by S. Fischer Fabian. He reckons the war between the vanir and the aesir is a representation of the urnfeld culture (vanir) and the invading indo-european tribes (aesir)
i'll read that chapter again some time in the next few days, and see if there's anything else worth mentioning at this point.

How old is that book? I ask because nowadays the Urnfield culture is increasingly seen as proto-Celtic.

But yes, one of the first ideas that I had in the Heathenry class was that the Vanir and Aesir were the deities of two cultures, a winning and a loosing one, that had come to some sort of accomodation.

Nantonos
October 12th, 2004, 05:26 PM
Or more indirect transmission from A to B through C, as well as direct A-B, B-A?
If I understand what you mean, then C to A and separately C to B, followed by A-B contacts.

mucgwyrt
October 13th, 2004, 05:18 AM
How old is that book? I ask because nowadays the Urnfield culture is increasingly seen as proto-Celtic.

But yes, one of the first ideas that I had in the Heathenry class was that the Vanir and Aesir were the deities of two cultures, a winning and a loosing one, that had come to some sort of accomodation.
So for all of us undergraduates - which two cultures are you talking about?

So two culture's with two seperate patheons and gods. They fought, one lost (?) and as the peoples merged, so too did their culture and gods - ? I guess this would make sense... I mean, they are so different - the aesir and vanir.

So ing, who was born in the aesir, kidnapped and became vanir - how would that work?! lol

Nantonos
October 13th, 2004, 08:48 AM
So for all of us undergraduates - which two cultures are you talking about?

First (Vanir) group: the people who lived in the area the Romans called German - bounded by the rhine to the west, the elbe to the east, the alps to the south and the seas (and denmark) to the north. Thats a good half of the pre-roman Celtic range.


Second (Aesir) group: the people originally from Scandinavia (includingDenmark) and north/eastern parts of Europe (beyond the elbe), germanic language speaking, pushed westwards by expansion and by pressure from steppe peoples to their east.


So two culture's with two seperate patheons and gods. They fought, one lost (?) and as the peoples merged, so too did their culture and gods - ? I guess this would make sense... I mean, they are so different - the aesir and vanir.

So ing, who was born in the aesir, kidnapped and became vanir - how would that work?! lol

Hostage exchange, a big part of political settlement among Celtic peoples.

mucgwyrt
October 13th, 2004, 09:43 AM
First (Vanir) group: the people who lived in the area the Romans called German - bounded by the rhine to the west, the elbe to the east, the alps to the south and the seas (and denmark) to the north. Thats a good half of the pre-roman Celtic range.


Second (Aesir) group: the people originally from Scandinavia (includingDenmark) and north/eastern parts of Europe (beyond the elbe), germanic language speaking, pushed westwards by expansion and by pressure from steppe peoples to their east.



Hostage exchange, a big part of political settlement among Celtic peoples.
*mr burns styleee* interesting...

mothwench
October 13th, 2004, 10:35 AM
How old is that book? I ask because nowadays the Urnfield culture is increasingly seen as proto-Celtic.
i think it was first published in 2003.

skilly-nilly
October 13th, 2004, 01:26 PM
Not to be too unpleasantly wifty/fluffy, but couldn't the designation 'A and B from C' include a referential to Other? The Norse and the Celts could have both been in contact with an avatar who then was mildly transformed by contact with their moderately different cultures into 2 separate 'gods'.

Not that they are the same 'gods' with different names, but that a God Avatar is acted on by Belief and Use-Magic to present to the cultures differently, while retaining inside Hirself the original singleness of Being.

My belief is that the Gods are what They are, filtered through our imperfect understanding. It is our imperfect understanding rather than the Nature/s of the Gods that causes multiplicity of appearance. And archeologic squabbles.

:caffeine: reading and drinking coffee, skilly-nilly

Wodening
October 13th, 2004, 02:49 PM
A very interesting thread! As I understand the origins of the Celts and Germanics, they came out of the fusion of two separate waves of Indo-European cultures with two separate non-Indo-European cultures. The Celts were a fusion of the Bell Beaker folk (thought to be builders of Stonehenge) with the Battle Axe people (also called corded ware, and thought to be an IE speaking people) .The Germanic was a fusion of the Battle Axe people and the funnel beaker folk (a culture known for building megalithic tombs with many burials). This is reflected in some ethnic differences (genetically Celtic peoples are more closely related to the Basque than the Germanic peoples), and also lingustic (Celtic languages having a Basque substrata while Germanic has a non-IE substrata that did not surivive but includes such words as folk, hand, ship, land..) All these cultures had some degree of overlap so one could say the Celtic and Germanic cultures were intereacting even before they could be called the Celtic and Germanic cultures.

The Germanic languages btw to back up what Nantonos is saying, have several early Celtic loan words. A few of these words are (and I am giving them in Old English for ease): isern "iron," ambeht "servant," rice "kingdom," and tun "town, fortified village ." These words apparently came very early before proto-Germanic had broken into separate languages. They indicate a period of interaction with the Celtic peoples, at times, perhaps even subjugation by Celtic peoples. Interestingly, we also see evidence of this in history. The Lugii, a Celtic tribe are mentioned in connection with the Vandals, a Germanic tribe (or at least Germanic by the Common Era). Strabo links the Gutones (the ancestors of the Goths) with the Lugii, and Tacitus lists the Vandals with the Lugii. One theory is that each of these tribes retained their own cultural identity but was subject to the other i.e. the Goths and Vandals were subject to the Celtic Lugii. Then about 150 BCE, the Vandals became prominent perhaps because the Lugii themselves had been subjugated by the Marcomanni. Anyhow, along with what has been argued earlier (such as the commonality amongst Celt, German, and even Roman of the Cult of the Matrones), I think it makes sense that one can be Celto-Germanic in worship. Myself I have bloted with Celtic recons, and have seen our outlooks much the same.

Welga!
Swain

mucgwyrt
October 14th, 2004, 05:16 AM
A very interesting thread! As I understand the origins of the Celts and Germanics, they came out of the fusion of two separate waves of Indo-European cultures with two separate non-Indo-European cultures. The Celts were a fusion of the Bell Beaker folk (thought to be builders of Stonehenge) with the Battle Axe people (also called corded ware, and thought to be an IE speaking people) .The Germanic was a fusion of the Battle Axe people and the funnel beaker folk (a culture known for building megalithic tombs with many burials). This is reflected in some ethnic differences (genetically Celtic peoples are more closely related to the Basque than the Germanic peoples), and also lingustic (Celtic languages having a Basque substrata while Germanic has a non-IE substrata that did not surivive but includes such words as folk, hand, ship, land..) All these cultures had some degree of overlap so one could say the Celtic and Germanic cultures were intereacting even before they could be called the Celtic and Germanic cultures.

The Germanic languages btw to back up what Nantonos is saying, have several early Celtic loan words. A few of these words are (and I am giving them in Old English for ease): isern "iron," ambeht "servant," rice "kingdom," and tun "town, fortified village ." These words apparently came very early before proto-Germanic had broken into separate languages. They indicate a period of interaction with the Celtic peoples, at times, perhaps even subjugation by Celtic peoples. Interestingly, we also see evidence of this in history. The Lugii, a Celtic tribe are mentioned in connection with the Vandals, a Germanic tribe (or at least Germanic by the Common Era). Strabo links the Gutones (the ancestors of the Goths) with the Lugii, and Tacitus lists the Vandals with the Lugii. One theory is that each of these tribes retained their own cultural identity but was subject to the other i.e. the Goths and Vandals were subject to the Celtic Lugii. Then about 150 BCE, the Vandals became prominent perhaps because the Lugii themselves had been subjugated by the Marcomanni. Anyhow, along with what has been argued earlier (such as the commonality amongst Celt, German, and even Roman of the Cult of the Matrones), I think it makes sense that one can be Celto-Germanic in worship. Myself I have bloted with Celtic recons, and have seen our outlooks much the same.

Welga!
Swain
You do say the most interesting things, Wodening.
Careful Nantonos, you have competition :hehehehe:

Wodening
October 14th, 2004, 02:20 PM
You do say the most interesting things, Wodening.
Careful Nantonos, you have competition :hehehehe:

LOL! I have my moments :farmerjoe

Nantonos
October 14th, 2004, 02:29 PM
You do say the most interesting things, Wodening.
Careful Nantonos, you have competition :hehehehe:
Most welcome competition in this instance.
Macha omits to mention her own work on Beda and the AS calendar, I notice.....

Seren_
October 14th, 2004, 02:47 PM
*Cough, cough http://www.wiccecraeft.co.uk/ cough*

Wodening
October 14th, 2004, 03:39 PM
Whoa! Good work there Macha!

Welga!
Swain

mucgwyrt
October 15th, 2004, 04:51 AM
:bigredblu Hey, that was dirty seren, nantonos!! :razz:
*eep* I was purposefully not mentioning that because it has some errors in it, whch I keep meaning to correct, but never get around to... :bigredblu

Morag Elasaid Ni Dhomhnaill
October 15th, 2004, 12:04 PM
At least you know there are errors though. That's the most important part. And it's a great article macha, so don't be shy about it.

Nantonos
October 15th, 2004, 04:29 PM
:bigredblu Hey, that was dirty seren, nantonos!! :razz:
*eep* I was purposefully not mentioning that because it has some errors in it, whch I keep meaning to correct, but never get around to... :bigredblu

Yes macha we know. Its called peer pressure. But its also called respect for a good piece of work.

Seren_
October 15th, 2004, 06:11 PM
:bigredblu Hey, that was dirty seren, nantonos!! :razz:
*eep* I was purposefully not mentioning that because it has some errors in it, whch I keep meaning to correct, but never get around to... :bigredblu

_whistle_ Nantonos started it...

But don't be shy. You write very well, and informatively.

Nantonos
October 24th, 2004, 12:29 AM
This sounds interesting. The earliest Celtic languages ae now fairly well documented (although the books about Gaulishare mainly in French and about Rhaetian, in German) but the early, pre-migration period Germanic languages are less well served. So this book might e of interest. I have not read it, and in fact only heard about it earlier today. If anyone knows more, i would be interested.

Orel, Vladimir ( 2003) A Handbook of Germanic Etymology. Brill. ISBN 90 04 12875 1

It is in print, hardback (xxxviii, 684 pp.), in English, but very expensive. List price: € 165.00 / US$ 206.00


This book represents a reconstruction of the Proto-Germanic
vocabulary as attested in ancient and modern Germanic
languages and projected to the Proto-Germanic level. The
volume contains valuable linguistic information giving an outline
of Proto-Germanic language, culture and pre-historic tradition. It
is the first attempt to reconstruct the Proto-Germanic lexicon after
the work of Falk and Torp in the beginning of the XXth century.
Readership: Specialists in historical linguistics, Indo-European
linguistics and typology, all those interested in early history of
Europe and Germanic peoples in particular.

Vladimir Orel, Ph.D. (1981) in Linguistics, Russian Academy of
Sciences, is a Researcher in the field of Historical Linguistics.
He has published Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary (Brill,
1995), Albanian Etymological Dictionary (1998), and The
Concise Historical Grammar of Albanian (Brill, 2000).

The bio, presumably translated from Russian, reminds me of a story that there was a lecture (in English) by a Russian linguistics professor called 'Definite and Indefinite Article in English' which started 'English has definite article'.

mucgwyrt
October 24th, 2004, 06:07 AM
_whistle_ Nantonos started it...

But don't be shy. You write very well, and informatively.
Thanks everyone :bigredblu :hugz:

I'm going to incorporate an updated version of it into the anglo-saxon diary I'm trying to make for 2005... :D

Nantonos
November 24th, 2004, 08:27 AM
I'm going to incorporate an updated version of it into the anglo-saxon diary I'm trying to make for 2005... :D

How is it progressing?

Nantonos
October 21st, 2005, 07:06 PM
Would this include the Deae Matres? Or were they strictly Celtic?
If they would be included in this path, can someone tell me who they were? (Yes, I know: deae matres = mother goddesses, I mean their names.)

In connection with this, an interesting book that I forgot to mention here:

Schauerte, Günther (1985) Terrakotten mütterlicher Gottheiten: formen und Werkstätten rheinischer und gallischer Tonstatuetten der römischen Kaizerzeit. Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher, Band 45. Köln, Rheinland-Verlag. ISBN 3-7927-0869-8

Its in German, which I don't speak and read at a snails pace with a dictionary. it is very interesting nonetheless, with good clear distribution maps of the different types of goddess figures and the overlapping areas served by the workshops that made them, plus a catalogue of finds and gretscale photos of them. Its fully referenced, which is a big help.

What stands out is that the regional variation does not follow modern national boundary lines. The upper rhineland, plus the area south of the danube and north of the alps, plus the east-central area of France, seems to form one region - but brittany, aquitania, and most of britain except for the very south-east part, does not have the same useage of these figurines. The border of Aquitania at the Garonne river, mentioned by Caesar, is particularly striking.

Within that area, the upper rhineland is served by the Köln, "middle rhine"and Moselle workshops while the entire rest of it is served by the central gallic workshop.

CromanMacNessa
October 21st, 2005, 11:36 PM
Not a contradiction in terms.


This thread is therefore for those historically-inspired paths where Celtic and Germanic are either mixed, or have not really separated, or where Archaeologists cannot really tell the difference. Shaking off 19th century nationalist perspectives on archaology and history, we construct our own 21st century path - eclectic but based on the best and soundest historical sources.

If it's not a contradiction in terms, then why call it "eclectic"? I mean, sure, the word "eclectic" is very "sexy" and might therefore be able to attract greater numbers, but it would be inaccurate here, since eclecticism is unconcerned with whether or not the resulting mix is self-referentially consistent. Why not call it instead "syncretic," since syncretism blends, too, but strives for a consistent system?

Also, I saw mention of Anglo-Saxon/Irish blends in reply to your Belgae references. I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread yet, but what about the Hebridean mingling of Norse and Scottish/Irish Celtic?

BlueTicona
October 22nd, 2005, 01:46 AM
"celto germanic ecletic"

Is that with ketchup or mustard? :=)

I think that that is truly the broadest sense of a path i've ever heard LOL

:=) aero.

mothwench
October 22nd, 2005, 05:18 AM
"celto germanic ecletic"

Is that with ketchup or mustard? :=)

I think that that is truly the broadest sense of a path i've ever heard LOL

:=) aero.
funny you should say that, as a self-proclaimed "druid". lol yourself.

mothwench
October 22nd, 2005, 05:39 AM
If it's not a contradiction in terms, then why call it "eclectic"? I mean, sure, the word "eclectic" is very "sexy" :confused: it is? that's news...

and might therefore be able to attract greater numbers
which, i daresay is the last thing on any of our minds (but i may be speaking just for myself here)
but it would be inaccurate here, since eclecticism is unconcerned with whether or not the resulting mix is self-referentially consistent. self-referentially consistent? i'm not sure what you mean. eclectic because, regarding especially the later mythologies, it isn't consistent. why does it have to be? :huh:
Why not call it instead "syncretic," since syncretism blends, too, but strives for a consistent system?
that may or may not be a better word, but in any case, in the light of the shock and horror this "broadest sense of a path" imbues on others, i've taken to calling it ancestral reconstructionism, anyway. but again, i speak for myself.

Nantonos
October 22nd, 2005, 10:23 AM
If it's not a contradiction in terms, then why call it "eclectic"?
To encourage independent thought and critical re-appraisal.

I mean, sure, the word "eclectic" is very "sexy" and might therefore be able to attract greater numbers,
LOL. I don't think recruiting was the intention.


but it would be inaccurate here, since eclecticism is unconcerned with whether or not the resulting mix is self-referentially consistent.
Please go and look up the original meaning of eclectic.


Why not call it instead "syncretic," since syncretism blends, too, but strives for a consistent system?
As did the eclectics, originally. In fact, neither term is wholly satisfactory. However, as you can perhaps tell from the other posts, the intent is entirely serious and completely historical.


Also, I saw mention of Anglo-Saxon/Irish blends in reply to your Belgae references. I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread yet, but what about the Hebridean mingling of Norse and Scottish/Irish Celtic?
Those would also be examples of later historical mingling, yes; as would the Germanic intertwined forms that were in the 19th century called "Celtic knotwork".

Speaking for myself the interesting part to me is the much earlier period, where its often not apparent whether a particular influence is in fact Celtic, Germanic, both, or neither. I have taken to using terms like "Rhineland" to describe the geographical focus and the time period, which avoide the necessity to say whether, for example, the Treverii were Celtic, Germanic, both or neither in the linguistic, ethnic and territorial meanings of those terms.

KellyP
October 22nd, 2005, 10:26 AM
Speaking again of the Matres, a book I have handy on my desk notes they also appeared under the term Matrones, Campestres or Suleviae and are the most successful importation of religion from the mainland into the British Isles. The author does not cite the inscriptions but states "out of almost sixty dedications to and images of them in Britain, all but eleven of them have been found in forts or were made by the military." He notes that some of the remainder come from areas of concentrated Roman presence: London, Lincoln, and Colchester.

Alongside the text, the author provides four drawings of Matres objects found at Bath, Cirencester, Maryport and Ancaster. It is noted by the author that no images or inscriptions to the Matres exist in Africa and very few in Italy so that the soldiers did not transfer their religious interest in them outside of the areas of Rhineland, Gaul, and Britain.

**Hutton, Ronald, The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles, pp 214 - 215.

Are there any sources as to what votive materials may have been deposited in worship of the Matres? It would seem from their connection to the warrior classes that weapons, armor, etc might have been the logical choices.

Nantonos
October 22nd, 2005, 10:41 AM
Speaking again of the Matres, a book I have handy on my desk notes they also appeared under the term Matrones, Campestres or Suleviae
Yes. Some of these are confidently proclaimed as Germanic, some confidently proclaimed as Celtic, and others are uncertain. The basis for the identification my be typology (eg the Rhenish hairstyle), etymology (eg the Continental Celtic origin of su-leviae, the good drivers) or by association with the (original) recruiting ground and thus the name of the military unit that provided the dedication.


and are the most successful importation of religion from the mainland into the British Isles. The author does not cite the inscriptions but states "out of almost sixty dedications to and images of them in Britain, all but eleven of them have been found in forts or were made by the military." He notes that some of the remainder come from areas of concentrated Roman presence: London, Lincoln, and Colchester.
Yes. In Britain, a majority of the dedications are on Hadrian's Wall. A useful reference is

Irby-Massie, Georgia L. (1999) Military Religion in Roman Britain. ISBN 9004108483


Alongside the text, the author provides four drawings of Matres objects found at Bath, Cirencester, Maryport and Ancaster. It is noted by the author that no images or inscriptions to the Matres exist in Africa and very few in Italy so that the soldiers did not transfer their religious interest in them outside of the areas of Rhineland, Gaul, and Britain.
Right. Also, none in the Greek-eastern part of the Roman Empire and few east of the Alps. Seems that the east-west split of the Roman empire has older roots than is often thought. And of course that area (plus Hispania) was the geographical area of the first "Gallic Empire".


Are there any sources as to what votive materials may have been deposited in worship of the Matres? It would seem from their connection to the warrior classes that weapons, armor, etc might have been the logical choices.

Within the empire, the mass-produced terracotta (well, in fact white pipeclay) votive figurines which are the subject of the Günther Schauerte book I mentioned yesterday seems to have been what was deposited.

Outside the empire, in the east Rhineland, a warrior cult of military leaders who had served and trained in the Roman army and brought back tactical knowledge, prestige, and weapons, seems to have grown up and those burials were associated with weapons. Thats from memory, I need to track down where I read it.

KellyP
October 22nd, 2005, 10:42 AM
Following the line of deities carried from the Rhineland into Britain by the Romano-Celtic armies, what can be known of the Genii Cucullati? According to Hutton (same text as in my previous post), they were found through the entire "Romano-Celtic region" from Austria to the British Isles. Areas of concentration include the regions around Trier where they were found in springs, temples and tombs.

Nantonos
October 22nd, 2005, 11:10 AM
Irby-Massie on the Matres:

The Matres are well-represented on inscriptions at Rome, Gallia Lugdunensis, Upper and Lower Germany, and Britain. In addition, epigraphic evidence has surfaced in north and south-west Gaul, Spain, Africa, and in the Illyrian provinces, but the cult seems to have been native to the Germanies. German soldiers, especially, worshipped the Matres. The goddesses broad appeal is underscored by the fact that the equites singulares at Rome were responsible for sixteen dedications to the Matres.

and on the Genii Cucullatti:

The distribution of the genii cucullati in Briatin largely overlaps the Mother Goddesses. In Britain, these deities appear as a triad of dwarf-like creatures dressed in loose hooded cloaks (cuculli); to the contrary in Germany the genii cucullati were usually represented individually as giants. [M.J. Green, "The Iconography and Archaeology of Romano-British Religion" p. 144; Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Berlin and New York, 1972-. Edd. H. Temporini, W. Hasse

Nantonos
October 22nd, 2005, 11:17 AM
Its not clear whether the Genii Cucullatti are always a triad, or tend to be triads more in Britain than on the continent.

I visited the Corinium museum, Cirencester in April of this year, and saw triples of genii cucullati plus some very Gaulish looking triple mothers. Looking in Henig, sixteen figures are described as genii cucullati:

three triples 95, 96, 97
three 'triples plus a seated goddess' 101, 102, 103
one 'triple plus a warrior figure' 98
four single 99, 100, 107, 109
one 'single plus seated goddess' 104
two 'single plus one other figure' 98, 106
two 'single plus two other figures'. 105, 108


Henig, M. (1993) Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani, Vol 1 Fasc. 7 Roman Sculpture from the Cotswolds Region, with Devon and Cornwall Oxford University Press.

Nantonos
October 22nd, 2005, 11:25 AM
Genii Cucullati are known from Gaul, particularly the Moselle
valley leading up to Trier and the east central area leading down to Lyons and across to Geneva.

The pointy hooded garment is a typical Gaulish one, and presumably common in Britain also. It seems to be associated with travel, but there is also a bronze statue of a ploughman wearing one, so perhaps it is just outdoors/foul weather wear.

The tripling seems to be much more common in Britain. The main clusterings in Britain are the Cotswolds (territory of the Dobunni) and Hadrian's Wall. A triple example from Gaul is known from Pithiviers-Le-Vieil (Loiret) and is illustrated and described on p.73 of

Deyts, S., Ed. (1998) A la rencontre des Dieux gaulois, un défi à César. Paris, Réunion des Musées Nationaux. ISBN 271183851X

It dates to the late 3rd or early 4th century CE.

The single continental ones seem to show obvious fertility symbolism such as erect phalli or carrying eggs. I recall seeing one in Autun with phallus so large it was lifting the hem of his hooded coat.

A wooden single genius cucullatus from Geneva is described and illustrated on p. 30 of Deyts (1998) and the oak from which it is carved was felled 100 to 50 BCE. This seems in some ways to answer Gabra-Sanders question (see below) of whether this is Roman or native dress.

A well executed single genius cucullatus in bronze from Riverey (Somme) is on the front cover of

Roche-Bernard, Geneviève (1993) Costumes et Textiles en Gaul Romaine Paris, Editions Errance. ISBN 2-87772-079-9

which is, for those interested in textile production or textile
archaeology, very good by the way. The cucullus (and the related garments caracalla and paenula) are discussed and illustrated on pp. 24-30 -illustrations include pipeclay figures from Allier, mosaic from St-Romaan-en-Gal, and an unprovenanced bronze figure now in the Musee des Antiquites Nationale, France. Two examples of people wearing a cucullus, both from hunting scenes, are also shown on p.36.

The origin of the cuculattus garment is considered by

Gabra-Sanders, Thea (2001) The Orkney hood, re-dated and reconsidered in Penelope Walton Rogers, Lise Bender Jorgensen, Antoinette Rast-Eicher,
The Roman Textile Industry and its Influence. A Birthday tribute to John
Peter Wild. Exeter: Oxbow Books. Pp. 201. ISBN 1-842-17046-5.

I have not read it. Here is an extract of a rreview from BMCR:
"Thea Gabra-Sanders' paper, entitled 'The Orkney hood, re-dated and reconsidered', features a recently re-examined piece (pp. 98-104). The unique wool hood with shoulder cape found in a bog at St. Andrews at Orkney in 1867 was dated by carbon-14 to AD 250-615. An overview of hoods known from Europe and examination of hooded depictions of the genii cucullati on Roman reliefs show that hoods were known in Europe since Roman times. It remains unclear from the paper, however, whether the article of clothing under consideration belongs to Roman or North European tradition."
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2002/2002-03-29.html

A useful essay is

Genius Cucullatus Exhibition
Carlie Sigel, curator
http://www.unc.edu/~css/start.html

Nantonos
October 22nd, 2005, 11:32 AM
OK, that was a lot of words. here is a picture of a triple of genii cuculatti from Gaul:
http://musee.lattes.free.fr/photo/4-defi/pages/10-genii.htm

and a triad of mother goddesses, also from Gaul
http://musee.lattes.free.fr/photo/4-defi/pages/12-triade.htm

Haerfest Leah
October 22nd, 2005, 02:37 PM
Wow most the stuff you all are talking about I have never heard of. It's all Greek to me.

Haerfest Leah
October 22nd, 2005, 03:41 PM
Nantonos, Got your karma. It's mainly just that I am not as nearly well read on the subject as you all and so I don't know all these different tribes you are mentioning. LOL I'll get there eventually, but the thread is interesting none the less.

Gnoblod
October 22nd, 2005, 04:59 PM
Celto-Germanic type here. Not in the mingled continental sense, but the ahistorical mingling of Gaelic and Germanic heathenry. I've tried leaning towards one side or the other to be more "purist", but it just doesn't work.

:reading:

heathenwolf
November 7th, 2005, 01:08 PM
Does anyone here know about the Alemanni? and how they infiltrated the Roman army to bring down that Awful regime?

Nantonos
November 7th, 2005, 01:24 PM
Does anyone here know about the Alemanni?

It was a confederation of incoming Germanic peoples and, probably, some Gaulish peoples too, in the area previously known as the Agri Decumates, which had previously been protected by the limes fortifications. The name means literally "all men".


and how they infiltrated the Roman army to bring down that Awful regime?

Where did you get the 'infiltrated' from? Lots of Germanic peoples served in the Roman army, yes.

Haerfest Leah
December 8th, 2005, 10:23 PM
This thread is still going I see. I'm gaining more interest in this celto-germanic rubbish you speak of. Mixing recon paths, bah! lol Just adding in the views of this I have been getting from some online Asatruars.(not on this board) I'm starting to be rubbed the wrong way by some of those guys.

blackroseivy
December 8th, 2005, 10:46 PM
If I could chip in, I call myself Druidic, but I just thought up this very thing as a solution to not being able to celebrate solar holidays otherwise... :p I LOVE the Winter Solctice, & as I'm sure you all know, there is no actual Celtic precedent!

Nantonos
December 9th, 2005, 04:37 AM
This thread is still going I see. I'm gaining more interest in this celto-germanic rubbish you speak of. Mixing recon paths, bah! lol Just adding in the views of this I have been getting from some online Asatruars.(not on this board) I'm starting to be rubbed the wrong way by some of those guys.

The point of course is that it is historically accurate mixing from a defined time period and geographical location.

As opposed to the fluffy mixing of wildly different periods and locations that one seems "because its all Germanic" or "because its all Celtic"....:)

Haerfest Leah
December 9th, 2005, 09:42 AM
The point of course is that it is historically accurate mixing from a defined time period and geographical location.

As opposed to the fluffy mixing of wildly different periods and locations that one seems "because its all Germanic" or "because its all Celtic"....:)

I'm with you. :achug:

Nitefalle
December 10th, 2005, 02:29 AM
I just wanted to thank Nantonos for this thread - he rules! I consider myself to be on a Celto-Germanic path (NOT recon by any means, though!!!) and it has worked very well for me. I work mainly with Cernunnos and Frigga and both of them seem to be just fine with it. It can be hard to follow a Northern/Germanic path and NOT be Asatru or Heathen. I'm just not that hardcore. It's not that I don't care about history, I do very much, but it's enough for me to know that the two groups did historically mix without having to know every single date and name of the occurrences. I'm pretty much rambling, lol, but thanks for giving us some credit, Nantonos. Karma for you!!!

Haerfest Leah
December 10th, 2005, 04:00 PM
I just wanted to thank Nantonos for this thread - he rules!
I'll second that :fpraiseyo


I consider myself to be on a Celto-Germanic path (NOT recon by any means, though!!!) and it has worked very well for me. I work mainly with Cernunnos and Frigga and both of them seem to be just fine with it. It can be hard to follow a Northern/Germanic path and NOT be Asatru or Heathen.

Sounds like a good deal to me, but also it seems that that could still be being a recon. I want to learn about and maybe work in some celtic stuff because of my ancestors but I'd still consider myself a Heathen.


I'm just not that hardcore. It's not that I don't care about history, I do very much, but it's enough for me to know that the two groups did historically mix without having to know every single date and name of the occurrences. I'm pretty much rambling, lol, but thanks for giving us some credit, Nantonos. Karma for you!!!

I agree with you, that kinda goes with what I stated in post #71 about being rubbed the wrong way & starting to get annoyed with all the "well whats your source for this, if you can't name it it doesn't count or exist." Sources and facts are good things but come on already. And for the love of mead, lay off on some of the testosterone.

Nitefalle
December 11th, 2005, 02:16 AM
Sounds like a good deal to me, but also it seems that that could still be being a recon. I want to learn about and maybe work in some celtic stuff because of my ancestors but I'd still consider myself a Heathen.

Well, the reason I don't consider myself a Recon is because I work mainly intuitively and I like to experiment. For example, my group has (so far) been working with the system of not casting a circle, of having an open Druidic style "circle" (I use that term very loosely) - but we'll call Northern gods within that very "Celtic" context, and it's worked quite well. This Yule, we're going to be casting a circle, but using a solar cross pattern rather than the traditional clockwise method, which I'm told was used very much in Northern practices. But within that Northern context, we're calling a Gallic and a Welsh deity. I also do a lot of folk magic, such as herbal charms and sachets, etc. I definitely don't consider that to be Recon....but then, perhaps I've been pigeonholing the Recons all these years. *shrugs* When I hear the word Recon, I think of a purist who only works with one pantheon, in the context of a certain time frame, based mostly on historical practices. Have I been unfair to Recons? :huh:

Seren_
December 11th, 2005, 06:35 AM
Have I been unfair to Recons? :huh:

Depends on the Recon :D

mucgwyrt
December 12th, 2005, 07:38 AM
I've been thinking more and more about this lately myself, being interested in the anglo-saxon belief system... that their system of beliefs were no more rigid or 'purist' than our current system of beliefs is, however vague a term that may now be.

The anglo-saxons at least (I dont know enough to comment on other systems of belief) had a religeon which was a mish-mash of all the beliefs of the areas they lived in; they celebrated celtic holidays inherited from the 'original' (by which I only mean the immediately pre-saxon of course) british, they acknowledged local dieties as well as those of their homeland, the amalgamation of later christian beliefs and the combining of them with older ones, etc...

The only difference now is that we have a much wider 'catchment' area when it comes to beliefs; we have access to way more information and way more cultures, and can pick and choose what we believe in the same way that (in my humble opinion) the anglo-saxons did.

(edit: I'm not saying the anglo-saxons combined every cultural belief system they came accross; just that they picked-and-chose, optionally or otherwise.)

Haerfest Leah
December 13th, 2005, 10:43 AM
I've been thinking more and more about this lately myself, being interested in the anglo-saxon belief system... that their system of beliefs were no more rigid or 'purist' than our current system of beliefs is, however vague a term that may now be.

The anglo-saxons at least (I dont know enough to comment on other systems of belief) had a religeon which was a mish-mash of all the beliefs of the areas they lived in; they celebrated celtic holidays inherited from the 'original' (by which I only mean the immediately pre-saxon of course) british, they acknowledged local dieties as well as those of their homeland, the amalgamation of later christian beliefs and the combining of them with older ones, etc...

The only difference now is that we have a much wider 'catchment' area when it comes to beliefs; we have access to way more information and way more cultures, and can pick and choose what we believe in the same way that (in my humble opinion) the anglo-saxons did.

(edit: I'm not saying the anglo-saxons combined every cultural belief system they came accross; just that they picked-and-chose, optionally or otherwise.)

I think I get what your saying hows this put it? For the example of this threads topic..... Our ancestors who were both of Celtic & Germanic decent practiced their faiths & had the worldview of the combining of the two cultures in their blood then why are we (their decendants) expected to just pick one or the other. It's not making any sense to me at all, please someone draw me a picture. :lol:

Like I said to Nitefalle, I see it as still being a recon since your practicing & living (to a modern extent) the way your mixed heritage ancestors did.

Like someone else said here before, Ancestral Recon.

mucgwyrt
December 13th, 2005, 10:45 AM
Ancestal Recon
Ohhhhh I like that!

Yes, that's pretty much what I mean I guess.

Nitefalle
December 15th, 2005, 03:09 AM
Oh ya, I'll add that one to my title....lesse, that will make me a:
Celto-Germanic-Discordian-Hedgewitch-Ancestral-Reconstructionist

Whoo!! Do I get a hat? _wiz_ :lol:

Haerfest Leah
December 15th, 2005, 09:41 AM
Oh ya, I'll add that one to my title....lesse, that will make me a:
Celto-Germanic-Discordian-Hedgewitch-Ancestral-Reconstructionist

Whoo!! Do I get a hat? _wiz_ :lol:

tee hee :lol:

Haerfest Leah
December 22nd, 2005, 09:53 AM
This week I'm reading Myths and Symbols in Pagan Europe and I really like it, it's tying this thread all together for me.

mothwench
December 22nd, 2005, 02:59 PM
that sounds like a good read, who's the author?



i came across this article today, incidently, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_tribe and was wondering about the authenticity of this bit:


Etymology of "German"
As the Germanic tribes never called themselves so, but the Romans first knew them as allies of the Celts, Germani is thought to be the Celtic name for them. However, there is also a Latin adjective germanus (<- germen, seed or offshoot), which has the sense of "related" or "kindred" and whence derives the Portuguese irm&#227;o and the Spanish hermano, "brother". If the proper name Germani derives from this word, it may refer to the Roman experience of the Germanic tribes as allies of the Celts.

Another possible derivation is the one proffered by The Oxford Etymological Dictionary (1966 Edition), which relates the name to Old Irish gair, "neighbor", which actually means "near". The Welsh is ger. Considering the earliest historical relationship between the Germans and the Celts, "neighbor" ought perhaps to be interpreted as "ally."

first of all, is there historical evidence that the celts and germans were allies, and secondly, i did read on several occasions that the etymology of "german" had something to do with the meaning of "greed".

so now i'm confused. :twitch:

Nantonos
December 22nd, 2005, 03:10 PM
that sounds like a good read, who's the author?

Ellis Davidson, H. R. (1988) Myths and Symbols in Pagan Europe: Early Scandinavian and Celtic Religions. Syracuse University Press.



i came across this article today, incidently, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_tribe and was wondering about the authenticity of this bit: :twitch:

I'm not sure, there are a lot of dodgy etymologies wandering about.

It's certainly true that people who are described as Germans pre-200 are culturally Celtic then and for a few centuries earlier (oppida culture etc); and by 3 or 400 different people (from Denmark, Scandinavia, and from lands east of the Elbe) were in the same area and are also called Germans. By the latter time they were speaking a Germanic language as well; its not clear what the earlier ones spoke.

mothwench
December 22nd, 2005, 03:29 PM
thanks nantonos. :bubbles:

Haerfest Leah
January 30th, 2006, 11:07 AM
Q: So in order to be thorough in the Celto-Germanic area I assume you need to study everything you normally would if learning Heathenry plus everything Celtic Recon? What about Druidry?

Nantonos
February 4th, 2006, 10:34 AM
Q: So in order to be thorough in the Celto-Germanic area I assume you need to study everything you normally would if learning Heathenry plus everything Celtic Recon? What about Druidry?

Sort of; except they you would study them for what the culture you are recon-ing turned into later. So in general, earlier is better; rather than Norse/Icelandic Heathenry you would look more at Saxon or even pre-Migration period if you can find anything on it. For Celtic, Welsh/British is going to be closer than much of the Irish material; and Gaulish is going to be the most relevant.

Yes, Druidry would be relavant. So would the Religio Romana, since a lot of the evidence survives in a Roman context.

Haerfest Leah
February 19th, 2006, 05:29 PM
Sort of; except they you would study them for what the culture you are recon-ing turned into later. So in general, earlier is better; rather than Norse/Icelandic Heathenry you would look more at Saxon or even pre-Migration period if you can find anything on it. For Celtic, Welsh/British is going to be closer than much of the Irish material; and Gaulish is going to be the most relevant.

Yes, Druidry would be relavant. So would the Religio Romana, since a lot of the evidence survives in a Roman context.

Thanks for the reply and sorry I'm just getting back to you on it. While in Cali I went to Borders and got 2 new books.

The World of the Celts (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0500279985/qid=1140384015/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-7972106-4731205?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) by Simon James c 1993
Amazon.com 4 1/2 stars all good reviews
The Celts by Jean Markale c 1993 US Edition originally 1976 in French
not on Amazon.com Same author as Women of the Celts

Both books speak of those areas you mention Saxons, Welsh/British, Druids, Romans & Gaul.

So far the 1st one is very good. Have you seen these two books?

Nantonos
March 6th, 2006, 09:51 AM
The World of the Celts (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0500279985/qid=1140384015/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-7972106-4731205?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) by Simon James c 1993
Amazon.com 4 1/2 stars all good reviews
The Celts by Jean Markale c 1993 US Edition originally 1976 in French
not on Amazon.com Same author as Women of the Celts
Have you seen these two books?

I have seen the first one, its a pretty good book from the modern Celto-sceptic revisionist school (ie the one that takes the position that the inhabitants of the British Isles were not described as Celts). So read it, be informed by it, and also check out the 'Atlantic facade' school and the 'pan-Celtic' school of thought. And then make up your own mind.

Markale is OK, but tends not to cite sources and tends to go rather beyond the evidence at times.

Haerfest Leah
March 6th, 2006, 07:23 PM
I have seen the first one, its a pretty good book from the modern Celto-sceptic revisionist school (ie the one that takes the position that the inhabitants of the British Isles were not described as Celts). So read it, be informed by it, and also check out the 'Atlantic facade' school and the 'pan-Celtic' school of thought. And then make up your own mind.

Markale is OK, but tends not to cite sources and tends to go rather beyond the evidence at times.

So far I like James' book but Markdale is incredibly dry and rambles.

Hangatyr 13
March 8th, 2006, 04:07 PM
This is an interesting thread, espcially for someone like me who often refers to their ethnicity as "Celto-Germanic". There are many notables who would make the same arguement that you're making, Nantonos, including H.R. Ellis Davisson. Keep up the good work.

Haerfest Leah
July 20th, 2006, 01:48 PM
Ok lets get this thread going again.

Now I've begun to narrow this stuff down. I know I had stated here before that most of my ancestry was Germanic and that I'm sure I had something Celtic in there somewhere. Well this week I've found a string of Scots (1100's back to the 400's) so I'm now starting to research the Scots. I've only read two books on the Celts in general anyways but I like being able now to narrow it down since the word Celtic encompasses so much.

PeatBog
July 20th, 2006, 02:08 PM
My interest is somewhat Celto-Asatru eclectic, mainly Celtic. I'd like to visit Orkney and Shetland sometime.

Nitefalle
July 22nd, 2006, 09:16 AM
I'm so glad you mentioned that, Peat Bog. I feel as if I am being slowly drawn toward the world of Celtic Recon, and yet I feel I cannot turn my back on my much loved Northern ancestry. I associate with it so fully. So, I was recently researching some cultures where the two blended, such as the Hibernians and the Orcadians. Does anyone know of more than those two, or at least more that had a bit more information on them? I'm fascinated by the Picts, but alas not much out there on them.

Haerfest Leah
July 22nd, 2006, 10:03 AM
That's where I stand, I'm not giving up Heathenry for anything but I am drawn to the Celtic tribes that influenced Britian (and Brittany) and that blended with my Saxon, Norman, & newly found Scot ancestry.

I haven't really begun to study these tribes too much yet. I'm going on a trip so maybe I'll find a few books on them while I'm in Cali. Another Heathen did recommend a book to me which fits well with this area & our Northern ways.

The Folklore of Orkney and Shetland (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?link_code=ur2&tag=guamblog-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F1841580481%2Fref%3Dwl_it_dp%3F%255Fencoding%3D UTF8%26colid%3D3NM2EX323MXO%26coliid%3DI2M890S0ALIX94%26v%3Dglance%26n%3D283155)