From: corun@access.digex.com (Corun MacAnndra)
Subject: Re: info wanted on runes
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:30:37 GMT

Carl writes;

>	I dunno.  Certainly there are many close ties between the Germanic
>and Celtic groups (read H. Davidson's _Myths_and_Symbols_of_Pagan_Europe_,
>a great book for Celto-Germanic ties).  But the Anglo-Saxons are _not_
>Celts, as standardly defined.  They are Germanic.  
>	Using the definition of Scythians you give above, the Scythians
>were not Celts so much as Celto-Germanic, later developing into the Celts
>and the Germans.  However, I would hesitate to agree wholly with this
>theory.  Celtic languages are usually grouped closer to the Italic
>languages than to Germanic, which would seem to indicate a split between
>the groups reasonably far back (after all, they were all Indo-Europeans
>~4000 BC).

I had not thought to divide the groups by language type, given the way
languages change over time and distance. Reference English for example.
A quote that comes to mind as a definition of England and America, two
countries separated by a common language. Even American english has 
undergone many changes from state to state. But you raise a good point.
The language differences would be a good reference for diferentiating one
group of Celto-Germanic people from another. Perhaps your reference to
the Celtic languages being grouped in the Italic (and I assume here the
Medeteranean languages) could account for the theories that sailors from
Crete did migrate to the British Isles long before the Roman invasion.

>	It is true that the Celts were at one point spread all over Europe,
>and also the distinctions between the Celts and the Germans are not always
>clear (largely due to "if-fy" classical sources) through the early
>centuries AD.  The Celts, for better or for worse, were far to fractious a
>bunch to unite themselves too - the idea of Celtic unity is a modern one.
>(Personally I dislike large political entities, and would take a little
>tribe over an empire any day ;)

Of course you are correct in mentioning the fractious nature of the Celtic
and Germanic people. This is why the aforementioned "empire" never
materialized. For more information on the Celtic peoples of Europe, I refer
you to an article in the National Geographic about eight or ten years ago.
Sorry I can't give an exact date for the article. I know I have that copy
in a box somewhere, but first I have to find the box. But it descibes in 
detail, with very nice maps, the Celtic migrations over northern Europe.

>	BTW - there are a number of Celtic elements in what we would
>normally think of as English (A-S) folk tradition.  This can be put down to
>the widespread absorbtion of the rural Celts into Saxon society during the
>Vortigern/"Arthurian" period.  During the various rebellions and civil
>wars, the Saxons fought with the remenants of the Romano-British
>aristocracy in the towns, while the great number of the rural British
>population fell in with the Saxons.  Thus elements like Morris Dances and
>"Horned God" survivals in English folk tradition.

Also, isn't the word Anglo-Saxon a combination of the names of two separate
peoples, one of whom, the Angles, originated in Angleland (ie., England)?
This would seem to make the Angles a Celtic people joined with the Saxons,
a Celtic-German (by your definition) people. Three quarters Celtic is pretty
close to all Celtic for most purposes.

>>Indeed, when the Russian government brought an exhibit to the U.S. entitled
>>Nomads of the Eurasian Steppe, one of the pieces of bridle decoration cuaght
>>me eye at once. Had I not read that the triskel spirals I was looking at
>>were actually Scythian ca. 700 B.C. I would have sworn they were Irish Celtic
>>ca. 900 A.D.
>
>	They are very similar.  The Scythians were an Indo-European group,
>and their art styles (especially in something as simple as a triskele) were
>probably the ancestors of later patterns used by the Celts and Germans.  

Agreed, especially when you consider that many anthropologists as well as
ethnogrophers conclude that the Celtic-Germanic peoples derived from the
Scythians. It follows that art and religion would tend to follow more closely
than language.

>>My point is that describing the Ogham as merely Celtic, you should be a bit
>>more specific and say Irish or British Celtic, or even British Druidic, since
>>it was used (to my knowledge) only by the scholar class, the Druids, and not
>>by the common folk.
>
>	I don't know of any Ogham finds outside the British Isles myself.
>I'm not entirely sure about the Druid Ogham monopoly, since I know that the
>Druids weren't into writing down their lore, but then again I guess Ogham
>inscriptions hardly fall into the same category.
>	Anyone got clue on who wrote Ogham?  This may be one of those
>things nigh well unrecoverable by archaeology ...

I have the Celtic Tree Oracle cards by Liz and Colin Murray. In the back
they list a number of books for further reading, most of which are from
the 70's and 80's, but one, _Auraicept na n-Eces, The Scholar's Primer_
by George Calder dates from 1917. I fear I don't know of any earlier works
that are extant. If there is any interest in this bibliography, I will be
happy to compile and post it here.

Thank you, Carl, for your insights.

BTW, just what does "Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn at manni eigi hafi
vidh kommit" mean. I hope I haven't just cast a spell on my computer by 
typing that in. ;-)

Bb

Corun

-- 
===========================================================================
    Corun MacAnndra     |   How can you be in two places at once,
  Dark Horde by birth   |     When you're not anywhere at all?
    Moritu by choice    |                            Sybil