Ogham/Gods And Your Impression.

[Josh Streeter]

I am curious if any of you use the Ogham in your impressions. If so how? Also do any of you use any of the old celtic traditions(ie:Leave a bit of your food aside at meals to the gods, giving a sacrifice at rivers/trees/whatever else). These may seem like weird questions but when I do WWII my impressions is that of a Catholic from New Jersey so I try to play the part and include it in my impression by having a rosary in my helmet and wearing a cross on my tags.

[J Meijer]

I'm aware that some people (even if they're not on this forum!) may disagree with my views on this, but in my opinion..

One of the major problems with dealing with subjects like tradition and religion is that the Celts, like many 'peoples'/'cultures' in that time relied heavily on oral tradition.
With (most of) that gone, we can only make (more or less) educated guesses at what moved people to do certain things, like chopping off heads, depositing weapons in water and things like that. We can safely say that some lakes had some religious significance, but how and why exactly is something completely different.

I think you can't really compare portraying a Catholic of some 65 years ago with portraying a 'pagan'/'heathen' some 2500 - 2000 years ago. If only for the simple reason Catholicism still exists. There is rather little to work with with regards to religion and tradition in the latter case. There are a lot of ideas about those subjects (including symbols!) that come from a neopagan, wiccan or modern 'heathenist' point of view (all of which were conceived in this hasty modern world we live in, not the Iron Age).

Although it's good to point out that the people of those times had different 'beliefs', I personally believe that you don't have to bend and twist what scant evidence we have to 'fill in the blanks' so to say. Unless an Iron Age Celt steps out of a time machine anytime soon, we will never know with 100% certainty why and how those things happened.

In a nutshell:
I think it's good to show what daily life might have been for someone in the Iron Age, however the 'religious' aspect of it is something which will (save the timetraveling Celt-scenario) forever be shrouded in mystery. Admitting this to the public is nothing to be ashamed of, in my opinion.
This doesn't mean you can't tell about how it MIGHT HAVE been, of course.


As for Ogham, of which I know next to nothing..
Wasn't that typically Irish and somewhat late? (Late as in a couple of centuries AD.)
I'm haven't seen much Ogham myself, but I'm sure there are people on this forum with more knowledge (and answers) concerning this topic.


Joost

[Livio Asta]

Ogham is too late and out of place for my group's impressions (Italian Celts from 3rd century b.C.), so we don't use it at all and we politely say to those who reenact the same time and use ogham that they are wrong.
Instead, i made some "sortes", latin word meaning any kind of small object used to predict the future and try to know the gods'will. I have differents: made of bone, antler or wood, with gods' names or shaped like rectangulars dices... Some are reproductions of findings, some others are just hipotetic (but based on texts). We still did'nt use them because we have to fi nd a way to present it to the public making them understand that we are not ACTUALLY trying to know the future! Even we should make money with that... ;-)

[Dru Durman]

I personally (not in re-enactment, but everyday life) follow my own version of what I call 'Modern British Paganism'. 'Modern' because I'm not claiming it's anymore than a modern interpretation and guesswork, 'British' because I don't like to use the word 'Celtic' when that covers Gaulish, Irish etc, but instead use names discovered within mainland Britain (with one or two exceptions).

I never claim this to be accurate, but it feels right to me. I actually have a feeling it might be closer to pre-Celtic shamanism as when I tried stripping back from the Mabinogion and Irish legends to try and find a pre-Roman religion I think I may have gone a little far, but again, I feel I'm believing and praying to deities that listen and it feels right, even if it's not recognisable to an Iron Age Briton.

In re-enactment I've not yet carried this across. I suppose using the names of the gods in conversation wouldn't be a problem, we know of Belinos, Belatucadros, Brigantia and Sulis, even if my personal interpretation of them isn't accurate. By mentioningn them we don't need to go into detail, but add colour and feel to ur representations, but as yet I'm still not sure about doing so.

Ogham I certainly don't use, as several others have already pointed out, there is no evidence for its use in my period (1st Century AD at the latest). If questioned by a MOP, I'd certainly explain that we know of a few names of deities from inscriptions, but not enough aboout them to say with any certainty how they were seen and worshipped 2,000 years ago. Practicing your own interpretation in private is one thing, but giving MOPs the idea that's how things were done is pure FARBism...

[Tim Edwards]

I think that Ogham would be entirely appropriate for late/post Roman British impressions.

I personally dislike the portrayal of religion in reenactment, whilst I accept that it was an integral part of everyday ancient life, I have seldom seen it interpreted well for the public.

I have met many strange reenactors openly promoting christian and pagan (even Mithraic!) ideas to the public without any deep understanding of original evidence, but solely from their own faith and conviction. But how can they be wrong?!

As an aside, despite having ancestral roots in Wales and Cornwall, I even dislike the term 'Celtic', for me it is too loaded with modern political connotations.

[Alex Hovorka]

I completely agree Tim. I find the word Celtic or be almost to generic and really it covers way to broad of a spectrum for me to get what I'm trying to say across. I think that the only accurate portrayal of Celtic or Germanic spirituality in re-enacting is just simple shamanism. It is assumable that Celts and Germans had the same sort of shamanic habits that almost every culture world wide has in one way or another. Seering items, like bones or objects, trance and drumming, medicine, and quite possibly god evocation rituals purely because every culture has some kind of individual or cast of people to do these general spiritual things. For the general public I think setting aside a bit a food for the spirits or claiming a kill in battle for a certain god is simple and general enough gestures that its safe to assume that Celts and Germans probably did something like it, just like many other tribal semi-indigenous cultures.

[Andrew Byrne]

Ogam is too late attested for the 'Celtic' era...it is a c5th/6th(?) century and later writing system. It has no earlier attestations (with the possible exception of one but this may be a mistake).
Anyone who tries to use ogam in a celtic reenactment should not do it. Its anachronistic.

[Tim Edwards]

What period is the Celtic era?

Do you mean the Iron Age?

I'm acutely aware that this means different things to different people...

[Andrew Byrne]

I guess what I meant to say by Celtic era is "Celtic Era". Some people do take it as Hallstatt, some La Téne, some both. Some take it as the iron age as a whole.

[Andrew Byrne]

then you may come into problems as to when the iron age ends, and whether or not you may consider Ireland a 'Celtic' territory....that is a long debate, probably best kept to another topic, a mon avis

[Dru Durman]

OK, to my understanding, the majority of re-enactors on here are primarily into 'Iron Age' as in 'Pre-Roman', as in 'BC' period 'Celts' (Britons/Gauls-whether Transalpine or Cisalpine). In which case, there is, as yet, no evidence for Ogham at this point.

I'd roll with Tim's suggestion that Ogham would be acceptable for Late Romano-British (at a push), though I'd be more comfortable with Migration Period, early 'dark age'. Slightly later than what I normally consider to still have the 'Romano' prefix, though to be fair, i'm not sure when that disappears...

If you're talking Ireland, I'd still suggest in the region of 3rd Century AD at the earliest. Mind you, I'm no expert. If there's earlier evidence I bow to that. Just trying to clarify the discussion over what period and where we're talking. Though I've always been fascinated by Ireland. Without the Romans (though I'm sure there must have been influence through trade etc.) what led to changes in Irish society, and what were those changes. I've always got the impression that when, for instance, the Irish raiders settled areas of Western Wales and Cornwall after the Roman departure that they were 'dark age' Irish rather than 'Iron Age' (although obviously for them it was still Iron Age). Just the same, when Brian Boru was fighting of the Norse, he wasn't leading a people who were the same as typical 'Iron Age' 'Celts'.

So, how much alike to start with, were Iron Age (Pre-AD) Irish to IA Britons, and how did they change (society wise and other ways) in the centuries that Rome dominated mainland Britain? I hope that's not a stupid question, but we tend to class Iron Age Britons in different groups (La Tene I, II and III for example) while still holding much the same image in our heads. Did Ireland actually change much at all?

Anyone, please chip in, it's a question that's intrigud me for years, but I've never thought to ask it before...!

[Terry Sebolt]

There are huge gaps in the history of Ireland, unfortunately. But there is a time where that changed in a dramatic way.

Ireland, in large part, remained 'Iron Age', with no major changes in society until the early fifth century (starting in 432 CE) when Patrick arrived back in Ireland to convert the Irish. By this time, the rest of Europe had been thoroughly Romanized, the Romans had changed and were falling fast into chaos and sloth, and Alaric had already sacked Rome. The Empire was quickly falling apart, and the Germanic tribes were moving into Britain (England comes from the Angles, a germanic tribe.) It was the start of the Dark Ages.

So, I think it can be fairly said that Ireland was thoroughly pagan Celtic until the fifth century, using societal structures that had long fallen out of use in the rest of Europe. It was thoroughly illiterate, and histories were kelp alive primarily through the bardic oral tradition. At the arrival of Patrick, literacy spread like wildfire in Ireland, whereas it was lost everywhere else. Ireland thus skipped both the Roman period and the Dark ages, and went straight from Iron Age to early Medieval.

At least that is how I see it. Bear in mind, that I am not the expert.
Redg

[Dru Durman]

Cheers Tony that's kind of what I'd imagined, but didn't know for sure. For some reason I'd not considered the spread of Christianity in the equation (I know, how could I not have! D'Oh!), but you're right, I imagine that probably would have triggered the change from IA to early medieval. Any further comments from anyone else still welcome!

[Andrew Byrne]

There is a debate out there about the Iron Age end in Ireland. Although Christianity came into the island in the 5th Century (before Patrick even....there were a number of ecclesiastical men in the country before - cf Palladius who was sent by the pope to ireland in 431to become bishop over the already present christians, so christianity was here before Patrick), it cannot be said for sure that the Iron Age ends when Christianity came in. The material culture differs very little from the late iron age and the early medieval period as far as i know. the main differences are in relation to new agricultural activities and to churches etc.
The notion that paganism was stopped at the period is nonsense to be honest. Although the church spread quickly, there were, it would seem still a large number of people who seemed to have remained pagan for a good while.
Powerful heads of territories etc may well have 'become' christian, but alot of people may well have remained pagan.

To say that the Iron age ends by the arrival of christianity is somewhat wrong. It cannot be stated. It just seems to fit into a nice chronological order set up by modern scholars in order to facilitate better dating mechanisms it seems. The term Iron age is a modern label, as is the middle ages. The early Christian era in Ireland seems to over lap the late iron age considerably.

[Terry Sebolt]

Hmmm...Well, I have to both agree and disagree. Certainly, pagan beliefs didn't just disappear. Almost nothing happens overnight, and there are certainly traces of prehistoric IA Ireland alive both during the early Christian tradition and into the modern day. Sites, culture, stories and belief worked together to create something new...a bit of the old, a bit of the new. That's why there was such a riff in the early church. So, yes, many of the essential pieces of the IA culture lived on.

However, changes in agriculture and law, the influx of a major new religion, large cultural centers springing up where none had existed before, and the emergence of literacy...if we're talking about any other culture, you'd say that was a major change, the beginning of a new age. Ireland was never conquored by Roman armies. It never gained and then lost literacy and technology and central structure. Therefore, it never went through the stages of Romanization or the Dark Ages, as those are the things that mark those two ages. Hence, straight from Iron Age to Early Medieval period, whether you say it happened in the fifth century or the twelfth.

I would say that by the first Nordic attack on Lindisfarne in 793, it is certainly no longer in the Iron Age. So, let's compromise and say that is was definitely Iron Age until about the the early fifth century, and it was definitely no longer Iron Age by the end of the eighth century. So, the change happened sometime in that 400 year period. But, Iron Age up until at least the 5th, which was the original question. I have no idea about the emergence of ogham, but Latin and Greek dominated the later ages.

In the BCs, well...this is the problem. Large lacks of evidence. No written records, no major cultural centers (makes it hard to excavate society at large), even a gap of pottery finds. Ireland was important as a metal producer during the Early Golden Ages of the Mediteranean cultures, with several writers telling about visiting and lots of trade going on. Then it just falls off the map for several centuries. Poof, gone. No letters, no phone calls, nothin'. So, maybe Ireland was just like the Britain at that time, or maybe it was out on one long, extended drinking binge. It's all lost from memory with only enigmatic traces left behind.

Redg

[Dru Durman]

I'm going to stick with the image of a long, extended drinking binge. Not because I think it's accurate, but I just love the idea so much. Sorry guys, not going to work on global trade networks and leaving convenient archaeology around, we're just gonna get drunk. For a couple of centuries straight... See you after the hangover! Beautiful!

But seriously, you guys are bringing up some great stuff! Andrew, you seem to be our 'resident Ireland expert', if you can enlighten us as to any evidence that has been left giving an image of the IA in Ireland it'd be great. Obviously the stories tell of the social structure etc, and Irish and Welsh legends seem to be used as evidence for Celtic society in general, but in your opinion, would life and society be the same in IA (say 2nd Century BC) Ireland as in mainland Britain or would there be differences? (I chose 2nd Century BC to avoid the obvious influence of Roman Gaul during the 1st Century BC.) If an artist or a storyteller were to paint a picture of life in a generic IA British settlement, would there be any differences you'd pick out that would make it specifically Irish or mainland British? I hope you know what I'm trying to get at here. I just wonder how much things were the same.

[Andrew Byrne]

Dru,
thanks for the compliment (well, I;m taking it as a compliment).

The answer, I can safely come up with is I don;t know.
I have done very little in the way of Iron Age archaeology here in Ireland, mainly because there is very little. And I mean very little. there are a few items of note. Ireland is notorious for having very little Iron age evidence really in comparison to other periods.

Some weapons have been found, as have horse harnesses. Some Iron Age settlements have been discovered, but not much.
There has been evidence of Roman presence, in the form of possible trading (- one find shows that an eye doctor was possibly trading in Kilkenny.)

For the most part, scholars look to Britain to see what life was like there and use that as a possible model for life here.

I am mostly a medieval Irish scholar, but alot of what I do does take in the question of whether what medieval Ireland is like is a reflection of the Iron age society.The use o stories to obtain a view of Iron age society is problematic. And I mean problematic.
Alot of early scholars stated that all stories in Ireland are Irish and nothing else, and that most of these stories, especially inthe heroic cycle of tales, are old stories that were written in the Iron age and passed down until they were written. However, it has been proven in the last few years that this is not the case. Or at least it is not as easy as that.
J.P Mallory has shown that the swords described in the tales are of the Viking period and no earlier. Social structures etc described in the tales are medieval, but are linked greatly with Welsh and other family settings, it seems, so the notion of an original celtic structure is taken from this.
Alot of recent work has shown alot of classical influence on the stories. This is significant to say that the stories are not all native in origin. They could originate as an Irish tale, but will often house some influence, or inspiration from classical, possibley even other influences, often to the point that it cannot be stated straight away which is which. So stories are often out as a good source for the most part, unless as I said there happens to be a ery very good similarity with other Iron age cultures, and one can indeed safely say that a certain aspect is indeed an earlier Iron age aspect.
That is the stories things.

Ehm, sorry if this is running on a bit long and twisted. It just shows how the debate is.

There is another theory out there amongst archaeologists that state that the Celts never came here, and that any similarities in culture and society are coincidental and are merely Indo-European in origin. It is celtic linguists that have shown that the language is similar amongst the native insular peoples that we now term Celts. Language would have been similar, but different enough that one would need a translator or to learn the language itself, or even used a lingua franca (in fact there is a new theory that CEltic languages came about as a lingua franca and spread north and east, and then back west over time - but that is another debate).


As far as the idea of whether or not Iron age life was similar, it is really just unkown. As i said work seems to be done comparing strands of evidence from medieval Irish and medieval welsh sources and comparisons to continental sources and takign this as meaning an original Celtic strand of society that has branched out. Similarly it is done with archaeology. But as i said Irish evidence is very sparse and most info on Irish iron Age is done by comparisons to British evidence.

I hope this makes sense. It is possibly a bit twisted, and I may not have gone into much detail, but the debate is huge and is ever ongoing...

Beir Bua,

Andrew

[Dru Durman]

No, I can see what you're saying, long and twisted as that was, it didn't lose me, and I can see it was all relevant. I suppose the reason the queston has always intrigued me is that there's so little out there that whereas with most other cultures I've picked stuff up as it was floating past, there's just not enough to float past when it comes to Ireland. And yet I keep seeing the Irish stories used as 'evidence' (obviously not by serious scholars) for Iron Age life for all 'Celts'. As mentioned earlier, I'm 'Celtic Pagan', and as I'm sure you'll be aware, you pick up any book claiming to give an insight to 'Celtic Paganism' they throw the Irish and Welsh tales at you as 'evidence'. Hence why I've stripped right back to what i've got and prefer 'Modern British Pagan'. (Not that I've got a right to tell people my beliefs are more authentic, but at least they're using names from mainland British inscriptions from the period I'm aiming for, not Irish/Welsh tales written down by Christian monks centuries after the beliefs had been reduced to little more than stories).

So, getting back to the point, the basic answer is 'We can't know unless a lot more evidence surfaces...' Fair enough. A lack of evidence that to me arouses more curiosity when compared to the wealth of finds on the mainland... WHY IS THERE NOTHING THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????? Lol! Many thanks once again, and yes, it was meant as a compliment!
'

[John Olinger]

Language would have been similar, but different enough that one would need a translator

Different? As in maybe, the the same language, but a different dialect?
Years ago my Scottish Grandfather came to the States to vist. My Mother's family are all lowlanders (Port Glasgow, Scotland) and speak English without a hint of Gallic. My (ex) wife could not understand a word he said. I had to translate.
John

[Dru Durman]

Well Gaelic is the branch of 'Celtic' spoken in Ireland, and introduced through the Dal Riatan settlement (as I understand) into Scotland. Mainland British 'Celtic' tongues gave us Welsh, Cornish and Breton. There are differences between these three, but they are all 'p-celtic' languages rather than the 'q-celtic' of Gaelic. They're similar enough that I know of Welsh speakers going to Brittany and finding they can just about get by with a bit of imagination and guesswork (The Swan: 'An Alarch' in Welsh, 'An Alarc'h' in Breton, Axe: 'bwyell/bwyall' in Welsh, 'bouc'hal' in Breton etc).
However, as I've said, these are all 'p-celtic' languages, so the differences aren't too great, but cross the Irish sea and come up against Gaelic when you're used to Welsh for example and the differences would be far more than simply dialect. Suddenly for swan you're looking at 'eala' and axe is 'tua'. Those are just two random words I picked out of millions. I'm sure there are many that are similar, but not being a speaker of any of them (I'm flirting with Kernewek and/or Brezhoneg, but not far in to either as yet) so I can't go into that kind of detail, but you see my point. Similar, but different enough that it's unlikely you'd find your way through without a translator.
As I said, I'm no expert on the languages, you'd have to get some of our Welsh speakers comparing language with our Gaelic speakers to really get a decent idea, but I hope that helps...

[Andrew Byrne]

well, one word or axe is bíail, which is closely related to "bwyell/bwyall". Tua seems to come from, my experience, tuath meaning country person, though there is probably a proper etymology for it.

what i mean by similar but through tranlstor is that the language is close enuough to you you don;t know it. I mean teulu in welsh is cognate with teilach in irish. but something like sciath and taryan are bot representing shields....both are related but dfferent. its a bit twisted in a way. tartyan is middle welsh for shield while sciath is irish fro shield. but targa appears in irish which is related to taryan. and seems to come form old norse. sciath is related to scutum. and seems to be of indo european descent.
but there i a difference betwen gaelic and brythonic....enough that an interpretor may have been needed - cf colum cille's expeditions into pictland...an interprator is nearly always mentioned.

Dru, you're right about the p-celtic/q-celtic divide...there is enough of a divide to support adifferent language system

[Andrew Byrne]

Dru, where in Britain are you located? I've just recently move from Cork in Ireland to Edinburgh to study for University....where are you located. are you up north, or south?
If possible , i'd like to meet up...and i mean if its possible. If not that's cool too

[Beth M]

but something like sciath and taryan are bot representing shields....both are related but dfferent.

In fact, Welsh does have (or did have) a word for shield that wasn't hugely different from 'sciath' - that is 'iscuit' or 'ysgwyd'. It's just that it fell out of use.

Beth

[Dru Durman]

I'm DEEP South, lol! I live on the northern edge of Dartmoor in Devon. Obviously a fair trek up to Edinburgh! Lol! I'd be up for meeting up, but one of us'd have to travel a bloody long way. If I'm coming up to Scotland any time soon I'll give you a shout, though I have no plans in that direction as yet. Likewise, should you find yourself heading down to the West Country give me a holler, we can try and sort something out. I'm out of work at the moment, so while I may have the time for a random trip up to Scotland, I certainly don't have the money!

[Andrew Byrne]

Ah, that's a fair trek alright A bit too far for me on a student budget too. What harm sure.
If I do head down I'll give a shout. Thanks

Beth, thanks for the info on teh shield term. cheers. I ahd not come across that term yet.