|
Post by nellie on Jan 19, 2011 15:50:02 GMT -1
Don't get your coat crowman!
I'm not sure but I'm sure i've read that the various celtic peoples generally didn't really go for the whole moon thing? I would disagree that it was ever quite as simple though. If you look at different deities many of them seem to be quite complex which makes me think that it was never as black and white as sun, moon, hill etc though I'm sure that was part of it.
For me the problem was/is not so much not feeling a connection with Briganti, but more not understanding how all the gods might fit together as part of the whole picture when my understanding of Rhiannon seemed to conflict with what is understood of Brighid. It's because it is all so complex (from my point of view) that I have to ask these kinds of questions. I find it's helping to think about the subtle difference already mentioned between the right to make use of the fertility of the land and the fertility of the land itself. It doesn't seem like a huge difference but has quite different implications like the difference between the Fomorians and the Danaans. I still haven't got it all straight in my head lol!
|
|
|
Post by crowman on Jan 19, 2011 15:59:43 GMT -1
i cant see why it should be so complicated though.... anthropological studies of various polytheistic tribes around the world dont seem to point to a complicated world view so why should the britons be any different?
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 19, 2011 16:03:35 GMT -1
Her cult was obviously widespread & not exclusive to the nothern kingdom. She obviously came first & then it's possible that the nothern tribes adopted her name.
She came before the northern kngdom associated with her and NOT the other way round. Her cult didn't spread because of the nothern tribes.
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 19, 2011 16:06:34 GMT -1
i cant see why it should be so complicated though.... anthropological studies of various polytheistic tribes around the world dont seem to point to a complicated world view so why should the britons be any different? Thats us brits ;D
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 19, 2011 16:28:12 GMT -1
yes gods were localised, but we also know that some were much more widespread and pan-celtic; Lugus for example.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 19, 2011 16:32:02 GMT -1
The River Brent is a very small tributary of the thames, its only 23km long, not a very good tribute to the goddess really is it? If she was so important then why not call the thames or the severn the brent or the brigant or something similar. not to be funny, but you asked for evidence for southern england, now you are saying the river isnt big enough? what are the criteria for something constituting recognition that she was known in southern england?
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 19, 2011 16:35:17 GMT -1
i cant see why it should be so complicated though.... anthropological studies of various polytheistic tribes around the world dont seem to point to a complicated world view so why should the britons be any different? I beg to differ... any anthropological study that presents indigenous world-views as simple is likely a reflection of the study not the world-view IMO... most studies of indigenous world-views I have seen studies of describe complex and sophisticated world views
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 19, 2011 17:13:47 GMT -1
Crowman, can you point me in the direction that confirms the idea of a nation existed in the British Isles before Roman occupation? Your reasoning that for a Goddess to be legitimate is dependent upon the geographical sphere of influence is suggestive of an Abrahamic context. The facts are that before Roman occupation, Britain did not exist, merely localized kingdoms. The non appearance of Brigantia in certain southern areas speaks of these kingdoms retaining their independence from the Brigantes more than her lack of "national" recognition. If these southern kingdoms maintained their independence through interactions with their own deities, why would there be evidence of the deity of an enemy?
RR
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 19, 2011 17:16:11 GMT -1
we are also dealing with something different here too; the 'celtic' world was civilised, stretched over much of modern Europe and existed for near on a thousand years (incl. romano-british). something different from many indigenous cultures.
i think we have talked before about layers of gods; the very specific ancestors, the more geographically spread local SoP (hill, spring), the even more widespread geographical (SoP rivers etc), the local gods and the pan-tribal gods.
Briganti was a local god to a lot of people with a widespread distribution across Europe. She is a well attested deity, with relatively a lot known about her and developing from her; for that reason it seems pertinent to include her.
not only that but looking back before the 'celtic' thing at IE and PIE, she is a deity type which would appear t have been far older and be much more widespread. Ceiswr Serith's "Deep Ancestors" being a useful book on this.
|
|
|
Post by crowman on Jan 19, 2011 17:16:31 GMT -1
"not to be funny, but you asked for evidence for southern england, now you are saying the river isnt big enough? what are the criteria for something constituting recognition that she was known in southern england"
Hardly evidence Lee is it? One river in the whole of southern england, which doesnt seem to point to a firm Brigantia meaning at all in my opinion. I dont want to get anyones backs up about this so i'll leave it here. Thanks for the discussion everyone and thanks to nellie for the initial post
|
|
|
Post by crowman on Jan 19, 2011 17:22:13 GMT -1
To answer Redravens post... im not saying britain existed as a nation prior to the romans at all, i think its more likely britain made up of separate tribes with different gods reflecting the land that supported them........... all im asking for is proof that Brigantia was worshipped nationwide, then i'll be quiet
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 19, 2011 17:24:48 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by crowman on Jan 19, 2011 17:30:45 GMT -1
promise
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 19, 2011 17:38:15 GMT -1
To answer Redravens post... im not saying britain existed as a nation prior to the romans at all, i think its more likely britain made up of separate tribes with different gods reflecting the land that supported them If you think any different, you'd be going against a substantial bank of evidence. ........... all im asking for is proof that Brigantia was worshipped nationwide, then i'll be quiet I fail to see how the worship of a deity requires national worship to confirm their existence. As I asked earlier, CM, exactly why does it surprise you not to see any evidence of her in other quite independent kingdoms? Does this not speak to you of nature of these independent kingdoms and confirm to you the fact that the term "nation" was anathema to these people? RR
|
|
|
Post by Rion on Jan 19, 2011 17:45:05 GMT -1
If I could go back to redraven's post for a moment, are you saying that the tribes south of the Brigantes, while worshipping Briganti, would have avoided overtly naming things or erecting monuments in her honour so as to reinforce their feeling of independence from the northerners?
It's a possible explanation for why no inscriptions to her are to be found very far south, and no major landmarks were named for her.
Crowman, if I might address you directly, why do you assert that the absence of Briganti in the archeological record (as it currently stands) in the south means that she was not worshipped there?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 19, 2011 17:51:19 GMT -1
"not to be funny, but you asked for evidence for southern england, now you are saying the river isnt big enough? what are the criteria for something constituting recognition that she was known in southern england" Hardly evidence Lee is it? One river in the whole of southern england, which doesnt seem to point to a firm Brigantia meaning at all in my opinion. I dont want to get anyones backs up about this so i'll leave it here. Thanks for the discussion everyone and thanks to nellie for the initial post it's still evidence. we only need the one piece of it to confirm the hypothesis. the red lady of paviland is only one individual, but it indicates humans were living in that area way back when. there isnt a threshold above which evidence constitutes proof and below which it doesnt.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 19, 2011 17:52:34 GMT -1
Crowman, if I might address you directly, why do you assert that the absence of Briganti in the archeological record (as it currently stands) in the south means that she was not worshipped there? It occurs to me that there may also be a difference of opinion regarding methodology... as megli has already stated, we at Brython are willing to accept (given certain conditions) linguistic trails left in river names and certain types of place names (wells and other places regarded as significant in folklore) as attestation to the significance of a God/Goddess to the local population. Crowman does not seem to recognise this as evidence. In which case the proof he desires will not be forthcoming.
|
|
|
Post by crowman on Jan 19, 2011 18:12:28 GMT -1
im merely stating that all current evidence of brigantia is in the north, and simply asking why there is none in the south... the only answer any of you have given is because thats the way it is at Brython. Great, im pleased for you.... i'll remind you of this next time you knock any of the neo pagans for believing without question
ps... at no time did i mention brigantia not to exist and nor did i say that britain was a nation
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 19, 2011 18:35:38 GMT -1
im merely stating that all current evidence of brigantia is in the north, and simply asking why there is none in the south... I've answered that, I note you haven't dealt with it. the only answer any of you have given is because thats the way it is at Brython. Then you haven't fully understood the replies. Could you furnish me with the parameters that determine the influence of a deity. Your insistence that a deity from pre Roman Britain has to be nationally recognized does not fit the living conditions of these times and frankly exhibits monotheist understandings. All deities from this period would have been localized. I'll repeat this for the last time, why would an independent kingdom in the south, have representations of the deity of an enemy? Great, im pleased for you.... i'll remind you of this next time you knock any of the neo pagans for believing without question ps... at no time did i mention brigantia not to exist and nor did i say that britain was a nation For Brigantia to be significant to you, you asserted there must be evidence of her nationally, those were your parameters, I'm saying it's entirely consistant that there is absence of evidence of her in some areas. I fail to see how this is an issue for you. The evidence is strong that she was important to a significant portion of pre Roman Britain and possibly post Roman. That is sufficient evidence for Brython to include her in it's pantheon of British Gods. This is based on evidence from various sources and not UPG. If she has no relevence for you, then so be it. As you know, I have no strong affinity for any Gods, being primarily animist by nature, but it enough for me that the evidence is strong that our ancestors revered this deity and therefore I am happy to participate in any libation to this ancient deity because I believe my ancestors would have recognized the name and therefore, my intention. RR
|
|