> From:	Bob Trubshaw [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> 
> Life's too short to give a full answer to the latter!  However, the
> 'supposition' that triggered my response to Carl-Henrik was that there is
> a
> *continuity* between Celtic attitudes to water and the early christian
> 'sanctification' of wells.  Dedicating wells to saints is well-known in
> among Byzantine christianity (i.e. the origin of the whole package of the
> cult of saints imported in the British Isles during the 8th century); 
> 
	Or taken over from the Celtic Gauls who settled in those areas and
were still identifiable as a separate culture in the time of St. Jerome? I'm
not suggesting that this identification of the Galatians as a source is
certain--just that you have not proven that the practice did not pre-exist
Christianity in Celtic or once-Celtic areas simply by pointing out that it
was done in another area.

> there is no parallel to such 'dedications' in Celtic practices.  
> 
	I'm not sure what you consider the "British Isles" but in fact, we
do have evidence--in hagiography for example--of stories where wells were
renamed for the saint who took over its control. And I would remind you that
the Celts were not confined to the islands of Britain, Ireland, and Man:
evidence is also available in the rededication and renaming of wells in what
was Gaul and the previously Celtic parts of Italy. 

	Also, in places that came under Roman rule, there was frequently a
two-step process of rededication: first, the well site was taken over by
Roman religious functionaries and then by Christian ones. The site (in
former Gaul) at Grand is a good example of the progression. For example, it
begins with artifacts from the Free Celtic era which are essentially
enhancements to the nautral water source which is a spring flowing into a
river. In the Roman era, the site was dedicated to Apollo Grannos who was a
conflation of the Roman deity with the earlier, independently attested
Celtic deity, Grannos. A great deal of building occurred then and the site
became a major pilgrimage site. In the Christian era, the well was
rededicated to Ste. Libaire, and a Christian church was built over the
earliest Celtic remains. This progression is not as obvious at most sites,
but frequently evidence is not understood, too, because most scholars do not
have the breadth of knowledge to understand the implications of evidence
from several cultures. This is not a knock on scholars--many do realize the
need for cross-cultural knowledge, though the way academia tends to function
rewards specialization at the expense of broader knowledge of multiple
cultures and disciplines. 

	BTW, Ste. Libaire had a brother whose cult took over the nearby site
once dedicated to Mercury and Rosmerta. (Many sites dedicated to Mercury in
Celtic areas were originally connected to Lugos, the Celtic equivalent
figure.) According to some sources, Ste. Libarie's brother was Irish.
Perhaps the idea of dedicating power wells to saints originated in Ireland
and traveled with the monks to Byzantine areas? That's just as likely, from
what I see.  

> Furthermore, the majority of evidence we have for Celtic 'veneration' of
> watery places is *not* from wells but from rivers and boggy pools (and I
> don't think this can be 'explained away' by saying that less evidence has
> survived for Iron Age use of wells)
> 
	Again, are you looking only at evidence from the UK?

	And why do you assume that British (meaning that of the Britons)
practice would be so different from that of Gaul or Ireland or what is now
Austria?

> I am *not* disputing Francine's point that the Celts were seriously into
> watery places.  But I am still looking for any evidence that in Britain -
> most especially my interests in lowland Anglo-Saxon England (which, by the
> time we find any evidence for 'halig welle' and the like, had seen several
> hundred years of Roman occupation and several hundred years of pagan
> Scandinavian settlement) - there is anything but superficial similarity.  
> 
	Given the A-S tendency to dismantle Celtic buildings and reuse the
stone, it's unlikely that *substantial* remains would be found. However,
when the folklore from a place (including the placename lore) is combined
with the evidence of Roman practices and artifacts are re-examined with a
fresh eye, they may say a lot more than they do at first glance. This list
recently discussed the sculpted figure of a sheela incorporated into a
church wall at Copgrove. The figure has been dated to Roman times and is
identical in appearance to similar figures in Ireland--many of which also
were incorporated into church walls or the walls of other buildings as a
protective figure (somewhat analogous to hex signs on Pennsylvania barns).
Does this not suggest at least the possibility that most remains from the
Free Celtic and Roman British eras was re-used by those who followed on the
land?

	Also, I think you are disregarding evidence of the consistency of
I-E lore regarding watery places as a place of communication with the
otherworld inhabitants. The seminal work in this regard was Georges
Dumezil's essay, "Les puits de Nechtan"; Patrick Ford specifically evaluated
how the Irish evidence both supports and supplments Dumezil's contention
that the guardian of the most powerful wells was a figure so powerful as to
glow, and that devotees approached such springs, lakes, rivers, and ocean
places to obtain the skill and inspiration necessary to perform the duties
consistent with their rank in society.  

> As I have written at length within the last year ('"Do not call it fixity"
> -
> Continuity in archaeology and folklore'  _3rd Stone_  No.34; April 1999),
> it
> is simply 'not on' to look at superficial similarities and assume that
> there
> was some 'unbroken tradition' being maintained.  Even when 'folk customs'
> have been maintained over recent centuries, the meaning and 'significance'
> tends to evolve and be reinvented over quite short time scales (e.g. just
> a
> few generations).  
> 
	First of all, only a very naive scholar would assume that folklore
remains static. Indeed, the course of change tells us a great deal in
itself. For example, see Patricia Lysaght's article on Verdure Customs in
May in which she not only catalogs the current customs but compares them
with earlier survey work done by the Irish Folklore Commission, notes the
changes, and suggests the social forces behind the changes. In her massive
work on Lughnasa and harvest customs, Mai/re Mac Neill specifically
addressed the changes that could be perceived and what they told us about
life in Ireland over the centuries.

> But this is really the territory that Ron Hutton has
> illuminated so thoroughly e.g. in Stations of the Sun (OUP 1996) so I hope
> that there is no need to repeat at length.  
> 
	Apparently, you consider Professor Hutton's work to be accepted by
all readers. Please be advised that many specializing in Celtica and related
fields find his works much wanting. 

> Suffice to say I am far from happy to accept that the Celtic
> archaeological
> evidence provides any useful evidence about immediately-prechristian
> beliefs
> and practices.  And I really hope that it does not need pointing out that
> the 'Celtic' mythological material (the Mabinogion etc etc) is such a
> thorough mish-mash of ideas written down so far into the christian era
> that
> there is simply no chance of reliably establishing anything about
> prechristian beliefs (other than prior 'supposition and prejudices'!!!).
> 
	Have you ever read anything by Marina Smyth? Her work on detecting
the non-native sources used by seventh-century monastic writers in Ireland
has helped to discern which ideas found their source in non-native sources.
Even when one allows the most possible credit for foreign sources, there
still remain ideas and practices that are not found in those sources but do
have parallels in 

	And John Carey has made the argument that the best-known
Scandinavian tales associated with water and wisdom actually had their
origin among the Celts. Michael Enright has collected evidence that argues
persuasively and in detail that Germanic (including A-S) war-band oracular
practices were borrowed from the Celts. Have you considered any of this
evidence?

	And even so thorough an "anti-nativist" as Kim McCone suggests that
*some* evidence can be detected in the medieval monastic sources--probably
to the same degree that the earliest sources tell us about the beginnings of
Christianity. However, in both cases, a thorough knowledge of the other
cultural influences and conditions is necessary to make such detection
believable. This requires a generalist's knowledge or the close cooperation
of specialists, and perhaps unfortunately, many academics are specialists
and may not be able to discuss their ideas or have them xchallenged by those
specializing in other disciplines. Thus a historian--like Hutton--may be
totally unaware of the linguistic or archaeological evidence.

> Maybe there is 'hard evidence' for Celtic beliefs to have persisted but I
> -
> and others who have looked such as Hutton and Tristan Hulse - have yet to
> find this in the British Isles - even in Ireland where (unlike lowland
> England) the Celtic period overlapped with the early christian influx.
> Hence the hope that the relatively late christianisation of Scandinavia
> might reveal something useful !
> 
	If the only "Celtic" source you consider worth consulting is Hutton,
you won't find any evidence.

> BTW anyone on the list from the Baltic countries??  As the last European
> countries to be christianised there is the tantalizing hope that some
> useful
> historical (rather than archaeological) information about wells may be
> lurking . . .
> 
	I have been studying folklore from those countries and have found
that they are populated by water creatures very similar to those found in
Irish folklore AND in much earlier Indo-Iranian myth.

	Francine Nicholson



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%