|
|
Post by mabinogishan on Jan 28, 2016 18:07:16 GMT -1
I have been much enjoying the pages on the Dun Brython website www.dunbrython.orgI have been a Brythonic priestess for about 25 years, and more recently have done several years research at PhD level at University of Swansea, Wales. My best area is the Mabinogi but I also have many years study of the different Celtic cultures. So a lot here and on the Brython site is very familiar, that nice coming home feeling. However some of it is a bit unclear on its Brythonic focus. I asked for help about the site's aims from an established member who was unsure what the answer was so suggested I post here. # BRYTHONIC means the Celtic regional culture of Wales, Cornwall, Brittany. This is a very distinct culture which once included all of Britain, but not Ireland, while Scotland is a bit muddled (see under Goidelic). The name Britain, British was taken over by the English in the 18thC. Until then it had meant the Brythonic ancestral culture, still used by Brythonic people to mean themselves until the late 19thC. It's still a live tradition today that Brythonic people are the original 'native' Britons. (Legends, fantasy, 'Britain' is not historical truth until forced into service as the UK.) # GOIDELIC means Ireland, Scotland, Manx; again a distinct culture, never part of the Roman Empire, so not as influenced by Greek and Roman traditions e.g. Ceridwen/ Ceres. There is some overlap e.g. the Men of the North/ Gododdin. Gwynedd in North Wales had a royal dynasty that immigrated from Scotland. But they did not install Goldelic language or customs. # GAUL, Tartessia, Galicia are three more different European Celtic cultures with their own distinct identities. It looks like some of the website pages are in early draft stage and life has been too busy to update them. On the Library page (which is really good with some quite obscure books not usually listed) the books given are not separated into Brythonic (British) and Goidelic (Irish and Scots). This doesn't help newcomers grasp how important and distinctive the British tradition (Brythonic/ Brittonic) is. Ireland was never part of Britain in Brythonic myth, as the great War between Britain and Ireland led by Bendigeidfran shows. The status of Scotland is mixed because of the Pictish question, and the men of the North. (I also think a few words about each book helps a newcomer choose. Plus many have free online versions which would be helpful to give.) The list of deities is in the majority Gaulish, not Brythonic. There's a lovely list off the side menu ESSAYS - Gods and Goddesses. It shows a good reconstruction of Gaulish deities with a few Brythonic ones mentioned but under Gaulish names. Epona is a pan European deity and even extended into Asia, carried by Roman cavalry. She may have been British originally, but there is more evidence for her in Gaul. Lugh, Gofannon, Mabon, are there but under Gaulish names - Lugos, Gobannon, Maponos. The Mothers are not clearly separated out. It is mainly a list of Gaulish deities, not Brythonic ones. I haven't gone through the individual pages off the side menu 'Gods and Goddesses' but at least half of these are Gaulish names, not Brythonic. There is disagreement among scholars in archaeology as to which is the older ancestral tradition Britain (Brythonic excluding Ireland and some of Scotland), or Gaul. Since it's so unclear it's best not to assume one is the root of the other. Also I strongly believe Brythonic deserves respect in its own right. I gather there is a new stage of editing beginning so perhaps these pages could be included, on which I am happy to help. |
|
|
|
Post by mabinogishan on Jan 28, 2016 18:08:13 GMT -1
Please don't hit me! I can't help being knowledgeable - it just kept growing ...
|
|
|
|
Post by potia on Jan 28, 2016 18:52:16 GMT -1
My understanding is that the South West of Scotland up to about what is currently Glasgow as well as the Gododdin would also be considered Brythonic. I believe the Gaels spread out from the Argyll region mainly up the west coast initially with Picts in the North East. Last I heard it was generally accepted in academic circles that Pictish was a p-celtic language so likely more in common with Brythonic than Goidelic.
One of the earlier active members was a post doc researcher in Oxford in these areas and if I remember correctly this was information he gave (although probably more wordy).
|
|
|
|
Post by mabinogishan on Jan 28, 2016 19:27:37 GMT -1
My understanding is that the South West of Scotland up to about what is currently Glasgow as well as the Gododdin would also be considered Brythonic. I believe the Gaels spread out from the Argyll region mainly up the west coast initially with Picts in the North East. Last I heard it was generally accepted in academic circles that Pictish was a p-celtic language so likely more in common with Brythonic than Goidelic. One of the earlier active members was a post doc researcher in Oxford in these areas and if I remember correctly this was information he gave (although probably more wordy). Yes that's a good outline. The Men of the North (Cumbria, Gododdin), and the Cunedda dynasty in Gwynedd (N. Wales), possibly Manawydan/ Manau, all slightly blur the boundary between Brythonic and Scots Goidelic. The Picts issue is very fraught! I'd stand well back and let those involved slug it out. But the main issue is that Brythonic means British and Britain - Ynys Prydain. Not Ireland, and not really Scotland which has a Goidelic language and its own mythic tradition. "Britain" was adopted by the English to refer to the new constructed state joining England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, in the 18thC as "Great Britain." But the older tradition of Brythonic Britain, the culture of Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, once all of Britain, still survived as a living tradition, and does so today in these regions. Nor is Brythonic/ Brittonic/ British clearly a descendant of Gaul. There are theories of sea migration around the Spanish coast (the Tartessian theory, John Koch); another migration line comes up the western French border with Spain through Brittany, but that's not Gauls; it's much earlier. The French do try to assert Gaul was the ancestral source of European and Celtic culture but their politics is very much La France la superieure. Then again there are those who deny Celts completely (Celtophobia). |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 28, 2016 21:47:15 GMT -1
It looks like some of the website pages are in early draft stage and life has been too busy to update them. Nope, nothing on there is in draft stage, it is intended to be as it is. On the Library page (which is really good with some quite obscure books not usually listed) the books given are not separated into Brythonic (British) and Goidelic (Irish and Scots). This doesn't help newcomers grasp how important and distinctive the British tradition (Brythonic/ Brittonic) is. Ireland was never part of Britain in Brythonic myth, as the great War between Britain and Ireland led by Bendigeidfran shows. The status of Scotland is mixed because of the Pictish question, and the men of the North. (I also think a few words about each book helps a newcomer choose. Plus many have free online versions which would be helpful to give.) We do know that Ireland wasn't part of Britain. By an large there are clear groupings on the library page. (The Indo-European books, the general 'celtic', the Welsh, then more general 'other' celtic as Scottish and Irish.) They are included because the Irish and Gaulish material helps inform and fill the gaps in the Brythonic. The list of deities is in the majority Gaulish, not Brythonic. There's a lovely list off the side menu ESSAYS - Gods and Goddesses. It shows a good reconstruction of Gaulish deities with a few Brythonic ones mentioned but under Gaulish names. Epona is a pan European deity and even extended into Asia, carried by Roman cavalry. She may have been British originally, but there is more evidence for her in Gaul. Lugh, Gofannon, Mabon, are there but under Gaulish names - Lugos, Gobannon, Maponos. The Mothers are not clearly separated out. It is mainly a list of Gaulish deities, not Brythonic ones. Those arent strictly speaking Gaulish, they do look it though as Gaulish is closer in appearance to the original Britonnic language. The ones you mention are more Welsh than Brittonic and - IIRC - we made a concious decision - the author of that list is a Celtic scholar and linguist - to adopt more Brittonic names rather than purely Welsh to get closer to the Brythonic as it would have been across Britain as whole rather than pure Welsh which represents an existing chunk I haven't gone through the individual pages off the side menu 'Gods and Goddesses' but at least half of these are Gaulish names, not Brythonic. See above - the names uses are consciously not Welsh but as close as we can reconstruct of the Brittonic language. There is disagreement among scholars in archaeology as to which is the older ancestral tradition Britain (Brythonic excluding Ireland and some of Scotland), or Gaul. Since it's so unclear it's best not to assume one is the root of the other. Also I strongly believe Brythonic deserves respect in its own right. Neither I would have thought in any appreciable way, they evolved side by side from a common ancestor. Brython was consciously not intended to be a 'Welsh' polytheist group but to draw on what material we can from the entire Brythonic traditions and from it's sister Gaulish and Goideilic where appropriate to help inform where we have missing information |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 28, 2016 22:03:49 GMT -1
|
|
|
|
Post by mabinogishan on Jan 28, 2016 22:37:42 GMT -1
Lee thank you for trying to explain. Although I'm still very puzzled.
Now you've pointed it out I can see the Library page does have cultural groupings.
But that wasn't obvious until you suggested it. Some of the items listed could belong to several cultures so that makes it confusing.
Perhaps putting in subtitles would make it clearer.
Still on the Library page:
> Irish and Gaulish material helps inform and fill the gaps in the Brythonic.
I think that needs to be stated explicitly so as to keep the categories clear. Otherwise it can look like one of those potluck New Age Celtic mixed bags.
On the deities names:
> Those arent strictly speaking Gaulish, they do look it though as Gaulish is closer in appearance to the original Britonnic language.
I don't understand that as 'Britonnic' means Brythonic, or British.
I haven't come across the theory anywhere else that Brythonic is particularly close to Gaulish. Where does that come from please?
> The ones you mention are more Welsh than Brittonic
That again sounds like you are making Brythonic separate from (older) Welsh. Brythonic IS Welsh, together with Cornish and Breton.
> the author of that list is a Celtic scholar and linguist -
If they are one of the happy New Age "Celtics" no more can be said.
But if they are a scholar then they will be specialised. There are very very few scholars who are trained in ALL the Celtic languages and cultures. So few I know the names just because it is so unusual (e.g. John Koch and Patrick Ford).
All the rest of us are knowledgeable in certain areas only, specific linguo-cultural groups. It would be arrogant and inaccurate to claim any more.
> to adopt more Brittonic names rather than purely Welsh to get closer to the Brythonic as it would have been across Britain as whole
There are fragments in the Cornish and Breton zones, but the most sizeable survivals in texts or archaeology are Welsh - that is the greater Welsh zone which includes much of the West Midlands, Cumbria etc - the Men of the North.
Anything else is not Brythonic.
> not Welsh but as close as we can reconstruct of the Brittonic language.
Yes there are some studies that do that but it ends up very basic and disappointing except to dedicated linguists. You get some basic words like horse, house, hill - tools, but it's all terribly tentative and everything ends up partial, and fragmented.
No deity names. They arrive much later.
I can't see how using names from a completely different culture, Gaulish, gets closer to Brythonic.
As you say next -
> they evolved side by side from a common ancestor.
I agree - so why transfer names from Gaul to Britain? There are British/ Brythonic names already.
I don't think using Irish names for Welsh deities, or French names for English towns and events, helps to understand them.
Why not just use the native names as they have been inherited and used by a living people? It's not as if the names don't exist.
Why make something up which doesn't exist when there is a real living tradition and culture? People have struggled over the centuries to keep Brythonic culture alive. It has taken immense dedication in the teeth of disgusting prejudice from the English to impose their culture as superior.
Yet Brythonic culture HAS survived and flourished. The esiteddfodau are just one sign. Politcial advances are another.
> Brython was consciously not intended to be a 'Welsh' polytheist group but to draw on what material we can from the entire Brythonic traditions
So that would add Cornish and Breton to the Welsh. Though I have seen no sign of Cornish and Breton cultures here.
> and from it's sister Gaulish and Goideilic where appropriate to help inform where we have missing information.
Yes that is an accepted approach. But it's also quite risky. It means that every single item brought in from the foreign culture needs to prove its relevance. Its evidence has to be given.
That is, give the foreign source (MS. text, archaeological item, place name resemblance etc) and the argument logic on why it might be a good candidate to fill a gap.
That way others can also check to see if they agree. They may know other bits of the puzzle that help - either by adding stronger evidence or else they may know stuff that shows the idea doesn't work, which is still progress in a different way.
You can't just lift something from another culture and pop it in! Well I suppose you can if you want, but it wouldn't be serious work.
|
|
|
|
Post by mabinogishan on Jan 28, 2016 23:25:28 GMT -1
OK I read that thread where someone says "Gaulish and British were effectively the same language" But there's no sources given for that theory. It's just a statement without any evidence or support. The rest of the thread is looking at Roman evidence in deity names. This is notoriously unreliable. The Romans were very sloppy about how they categorised native deities. It was typical coloniser stuff. They viewed the native cults through the lens of their own religion and didn't bother to try and understand the actual religion they were looking at. So they had their own core set of deities and looked for possible matches. Whether it really matched or not apart from a few features didn't matter. History is written by the winners as they say. If a god was noisy and had a warlike weapon why then he must be Mars. Simple! That he might be a god of agriculture, or simply the ancestor of a warlike tribe, was irrelevant. Suddenly the native god became the consort of Venus, or a supposed native goddess of love ... Sulis might be compared to Minerva as a healer, but ignoring her water origins and local associations. Caesar wrote a lot of politicised rant mainly aimed to make the Gauls look primitive and barbaric to justify conquering them. Tacitus is much better, and at least he writes about Britain, but has less to say about religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 28, 2016 23:27:07 GMT -1
Ok, so the language of Britain during the Iron Age and Romano-British period was 'Brittonic', 'Brythonic' or 'Common Brittonic/Brythonic'.
From this are descended the Brittonic or Brythonic languages; Old Welsh>Middle Welsh>Modern Welsh, Cornish and Breton.
Welsh is a Brythonic language, but it isn't 'Common Brittonic/Brythonic', I am trying to make a distinction between the parent language and it's children so to speak. If you were to be transported back 2000 years and speak Welsh, you would probably not be understood.
The chap who did this for us is a member of Brython; did his undergrad, masters and I think PhD in Celtic languages at Oxford, taught at Cambridge and is now a 'teacher' (can't reall the term they use there) at Oxford. He knows his stuff, speaks more languages than you or I combined (and I mean fluently) so when he says 'Common Brittonic' from iron Age Britain was by and large the same as Gaulish from the same period, I take his word for it. You only need to look at the languages to see similarities and the like. He will most likely BE one of 'those scholars' training in the languages.
We also have another scholarly chap who hasnt been on in a while who knows his stuff - again from an academic point of view and study - about the languages in question. If you look up the top of the page for the 'members' button and browse through the posting history for "Megli" and "Deiniol" you can get an idea of their areas of knowledge and expertise.
From a language and naming point of view, the names are broadly the same in how they appear whether from iron age Britain of Gaul. It isnt 'Imposing foreign names on British deities'. If you mean we should be using 'Nudd' or Lleu' for the gods we are talking about then those names would have been even more alien to the people of 2000 years ago.
I have emailed Megli to drop by and he can discuss that with you if you want. I am not a linguist so those levels of discussion arent my field.
What Cornish of Breton gods are you thinking of here? or practices? that we can use to inform what was going on in Britain during the Iron age and RB period?
I will quote the front page on the Brython website: "Brython is a group of polytheists who aim “To research, recover and redistribute to the best of our knowledge and wisdom the native British pre-Christian Spirituality, as evidenced by historical sources and personal experiences, to trace its influence and expression into later times and to explore its application and relevance to life in the modern world”
The Welsh, Gaulish and Irish are the best sources we have at the moment. If there is Cornish or Breton material which you think would help, please do let us know.
> and from it's sister Gaulish and Goideilic where appropriate to help inform where we have missing information.
From a methodological point of view yes, but when presenting it on a website it would be very untidy and dry. That analytical side is done during the research by whoever is preparing the work - if there are specific examples of problems that crop up they can be discussed or looked at.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 28, 2016 23:44:06 GMT -1
As we know the person, he background and experise - we trust him and accept what he says. We have known him for many years.
This assumes that the archaeological evidence was being exclusively created by Romans - it wasn't, it was being created by Romano-British people; people who worshipped and knew their gods. If a British god was equated with Mars for instacne, it gives us a big clue about their character. We can also using the etymology of their names, other comparative evidence from Indo-European cultures and get an even better idea.
Unless there is better information outside of the Romano-British, that is all we have to go on. We know nothing about Nudd, yet by looking at who he was equated with by the Romans as Nodens, we can get a good idea about him. It isnt flawless, but is part of a toolkit we can use. It is also particularly helpful because they carved it in stone at the time, rather than 700 years of oral tradition in which things are lost or changed or added. Guy de la Bedoyere's book listed on the Library is really good for this subject (Gods with Thunderbolts)
But as we know a lot about Mars, we can infer links to agriculture or healing - by taking evidence in context and broadly we an do this. nodens is equated with mars, and has a temple site of healing at Lydney; therefpore we can surmise it is the healing side of things he is associetd with mars for. As it happens it is also mar's martial qualities he is linked to , something we can glean by looking further amongst the other Indo-European religions. The Roman religion for instance is a cousin of the Brythonic people - people have studied this and found a lot of similarity (George Dumezil, Michael Enright for instance) whihc means we can derive broad level information with which to begin a relationship with the gods. from there, it is the personal experience which takes over.
And yet the comparison tells us something - it tells us that when they discovered something about Sulis, they equated it with Minerva's qualities; that tells us something. The water associations we can work out from the fact Bath still exists!
The Romano-British evidence gives us SOMETHING, some information to work with. To ignore or discount it because they were colonisers would be, frankly, stupid.
Lee
|
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Jan 29, 2016 10:02:12 GMT -1
Shan, you say you would trust a scholar like John Koch. So I'll quote him:
"The cultural isolation of Ireland from Britain [from the 4th c. BC] can be correlated with the break up of the Gaulish--Brittonic-Goidelic language area, as reflected in a series of linguistic innovations shared by Gaulish and Brittonic, but not Goidelic." (from The 'Flow and Ebb of the European Bronze Age' inCeltic From The West 2 (2013).The general view that Brittonic and Gaulish developed in close proximity, separate from Goidelic and Celt-Iberian cannot be proved with absolute certainty but is the prevailing view among those working in the field. Tartessian, which you mentioned, is further back and much more speculative and depends upon deciphering some inscriptions in southern Iberia written in a Phoenician script which John Koch and Fernando Fernandez Palacios have decided are Celtic.
When you give examples of names which you say are Gaulish and not Brittonic it's hardly likely, particularly with the names of gods, that they did not share names. But the particular examples you give (Maponos, Lugos etc) which you say are Gaulish, and your claim that the Brittonic versions are Mabon, Lugh etc)is confusing. Maponos is a Brittonic name that developed into Mabon in Welsh by losing the suffix 'os' (indicating a male deity)with the P softening to b. As sites of worship are known for Maponos in Northern England and southern Scotland his British status is also known. The identified process of linguistic change enable back formations to Brittonic from names like Rhiannon to Rigantona, Modron to Matrona etc. As far as Lugh is concerned this is a Goidelic form of Lugos who is sometimes considered a pan-Celtic god who appears as Lleu in the Fourth Branch of y Mabinogi (though some would dispute this).
Whether or not we should be reconstructing names rather than using their developed forms is arguable ( I prefer to address Rigantona formally by that name and informally as Rhiannnon)but the origin of the names in Brittonic and the close links between Brittonic and Gaulish when these names would have developed (some would say they were the same culture)means that that the distinctions you are making are not really viable.
|
|
|
|
Post by lorna on Jan 30, 2016 9:32:15 GMT -1
Just to add my little bit, whilst I can't speak for the majority of the site, as I'm a newish member, it is my understanding there is a lot of overlap between the Brythonic cultures and Gaulish culture. Belisama appears by the same name in each. There is plenty of evidence of an insular cult of Matrona and Maponos in northern Britain and my research and personal intuitions lead me to believe they are earlier names of Modron and Mabon.
I do think it would help giving the sections in the library titles for clarification.
|
|
