The mystery of Lug

Phil NEWMAN

Who was Lug ?

The ancient name for is: . ‘Lug’ is an ancient Celtic god and ‘dunum’ is an old Celtic word which signifies a fort in an elevated place.

But who exactly was Lug?

All photographs by Philip Newman

The Lugdunam :

Two brothers, Mômoros and Atepomaros, following the instructions of an oracle, came to Fourviere to found a Roman sanctuary. Whilst they were digging the foundations a flock of crows arrived and so the brothers decided to name their site ‘Lougosdounos’. In their dialect, ‘Lougos’ meant ‘crow’ and ‘dounos’ meant prominent place’.

Introduction

Arriving as a newcomer to Lyon, in 2004, to teach English as foreign language, I naturally bought tourist guides to acquaint myself better with the city. Consequently, during our first few months here, my family and I slowly came to discover the city’s delights.

Discovering that the old name for Lyon was ‘Lugdunum’, I queried its etymology and learnt that 'Lug' was a play on words between a Celtic god and a crow, and that 'dunum' meant an elevated fort. Hence arose the question of 'who was this Celtic god, Lug?' It was a question to which I received little reply, just the famous French shrug of the shoulders with palms raised. As for my English colleagues? Well, there were a few shots in the dark since the word 'lug' has many meanings in English, but generally they missed the target.

Thus it was that Lyon’s bookshops were browsed to try and find a book which would answer my question. I was disappointed. English books upon Lyon’s historical origins are pretty non-existant and my French needed serious attention before I could tackle detailed guides in that language. I thus strode up Lyon’s Fourviere hill to visit the Gallo-Romain museum sure to find an answer. But no! As I chatted to museum staff all I heard was doubt that Lug ever existed in Lyon. Then, as I descended through the museums layers it was evident why, for there was a complete lack of any Lug images, inscriptions or statuettes amongst the exhibits. That did seem rather discouraging and I could easily have lost interest at that point. But as I later idly surfed the net, other interesting leads on the Lug trail surfaced to rekindle my interest.

First, I found numerous websites dedicated to an Irish god named ‘’. Then I came across Alex Kondratiev’s article: ‘. The many gifted Lord’, which explained that both ‘Lugh’ and ‘Lugus’ (or ‘Lug’) were one and the same god. I thus dipped into Ron Hutton’s book, ‘The Pagan Religions of the Ancient ’, to find out more about this Irish Lugh existing across the seas from . Thereby re-inspired, I next switched track and launched upon a new strategy: I decided to trace the word 'Lug' back to its Indoeuropean linguistic root, from where I could forward-track in time to Roman Lugdunum. Personally, undertaking that trip became a fascinating voyage of discovery, observing en route the Celtic emergence as a European super-power, before it finally bowed out to the mighty .

Barry Cunliffe’s book (‘The Ancient ’), when published in 2006, stretched my understanding of this process even further, for in reading it I learnt that this ‘Celtic emergence’

was not an isolated event. Rather, it occurred within a complex web of interactions with other cultures such as Phoenician, Hittite, Thracian, Etruscan, Scythian, Dorian, Germanic, Greek, Roman...to name but a few. I also discovered that Lug was a ‘-European’ god who had existed across the Celtic Empire. Indeed, he was even represented within Greek and Roman mythologies as Hermes and . The picture began to look increasingly fascinating.

That Celtic and Roman mythologies merged was largely due to translation demands: The Romans equated Celtic gods with their own gods in order to help their citizens at home better understand Gallic culture. That such a merging was possible indicates mythological similarities, with both Celtic and Roman holding concepts in common. In fact, we can extend this to the Greek myths, which greatly influenced the Roman myths, and even to Indoeuropean myths in general. Therein lies the nexus of this work, for it appeared to me that the fundamental cores of all these myths must have been in place before the Indoeuropean languages diverged in order for their common concepts to be so widely shared. Hence, in tracing Lug etymologically, a slice of how proto-Indoeuropeans conceived the world was sought. That spread out across through the Celtic diaspora and that Greek rationality provided the foundation stone of modern, philosophic thought is nothing new. But the possibility that they both began with some joint concept of 'Lug', I found intriguing.

At a later point in time I wavered in supporting this conclusion. The reason being that though I read about commonalities between early Greek and Celtic philosophies, Lug (per se) was never mentioned. Nevertheless, I had found that 'Lug' was a very common prefix in place names wherever Celtic culture had reached. In France alone, more than thirty towns are named after Lug. Hence, in response to this universality, I strove (perhaps too blindly) to find a common thread origin.

It was at this point that I discovered the delightful works of cognitive archaologists David Lewis-Williams and David Pearce (‘The Mind in the Cave’ & ‘The Mind’) which explores the development of ‘Mind’ within both paleolithic and neolithic societies. I also came across a series of informative lectures on the internet by the reknowned archaelogist ‘Professor Colin Renfrew’. In addition, I ordered on-line an older, classic text by R.B.Onians dealing with: ‘The Origins of European Thought’; I found a copy of Miranda Green’s ‘The Gods of the Celts’ sitting on my bookshelf, and I dug out various anthropology books kept over from my student days. Undoubtedly, these works all influenced my reflections during the writing of this text.

Concurrently, I also began making some headway towards having a picture of life in 'Lugdunum' under Roman control. Partly this was through internet sites, but I also began struggling with books in French borrowed from the local library, finding the works of André Pelletier (‘Lugdunum’ & ‘Histoire Archaeologie de la France Ancienne’) particularly illuminating. Then, ’ Gallo-Romain museum displayed it’s ‘Par Teutatis’ exhibition, accompanied by the release of ‘Religion and Société in Gaule’ (by Messieurs Godineau and Vernier. 2006) and this further rounded my knowledge.

Basically, I learnt that Lugdunum was an advanced, cosmopolitan, multi-cultural society that had developed well beyond its pre-historical origins through the arrival of peoples from far afield: Celts, Greeks, Phoenicians, Egyptians... and finally Romans. Mercantile, political, or pure survival forces had led them here and they brought with them their individual cultural baggage which they blended together. Of all these peoples, the Celts were often considered the barbarians, particularly by Greek or Roman historians. Unfortunatley, there were no Celtic historians to present an alternative image. The Romans, we know, culturally mimicked the Greeks by copying their gods and applying their rationality systematically to governance and jurisdiction. In Lugdunam, as in , they dominated Celtic culture. Partly this was an imposed domination involving the enslavement of the Celtic peoples. Partly it was voluntarily accepted, for the well appreciated the commercial benefits that would arrive in the Roman’s wake.

Thus, as the Gallo-Roman landscape of Lugdunum began to take form, a picture of Lug slowly began to emerge. But it was a vague picture, one that transcended straightforward definition and forever seemed just beyond my grasp. Rash speculation was a danger to which I occassionally succumbed, despite generally managing to later extract myself with a quick click on the ‘delete’ key before making any really wild statements: Writing with computers has distinct advanges over paper and pen. Nevertheless, the borderline separating fact and conjecture occassionally appeared rather grey and I leave it to readers to decide whether my creative speculations ever went too far.

In sum, to answer the original question, I took three approaches:

Part 1. An examination of the genesis of Celtic religious beliefs.

Beginning at the dawn of humanity, humankind’s awakening consciousness and spirituality is traced from its roots (chapter one). The proto-Indoeuropean speaking peoples are then

examined as a pool from which the Celts, Italics, Greeks, Germanics, Indo- and emerged (chapter two). Underlying this examination is the search for cultural commonalities, which hopefully sets the scene for an exploration of the ‘etymology of Lug’ (chapter three). Finally, there is a brief discussion upon hermeneutic issues (chapter four) considering that Lug, as with religion in general, was involved in the Celtic construction of ‘Meaning’.

Part 2. An examination of Celtic growth, including the Gauls under Roman domination.

This is an historical account of the emergence of the Celtic Empire ranging from its proto- Indoeuropean origins, to being a highly creative culture undergoing war-mongering migrations across Europe, to its decline at the hands of the Romans (chapter 5). The account moves the discussion from the Celts as a generality, to the Celts in Gaul, to the Celts in Lugdunum. In so doing the are examined (chapter 6) followed by the Segosiaves (chapter seven); one of the more important Celtic tribes based in the Rhône-Alpes region. Gaul, as a political, administrative unit is next defined (chapter eight) and then Lugdunum myth is re-stated and explained in full (chapter nine). Finally, the story of the Romans in Gaul, and Lugdunum, is told as concisely as possible (chapter 10). Interested readers could consult the bibliography for further works on this immense subject.

Part 3. A comparative look at Lug through the myths of other cultures.

The fact that Lug was a pan-European god enables him to be seen in different manifestations in different European mythologies. These mythologies hold proto-Indoeuropean cultural origins in common which can thus help discern the non-diffused essence of Lug. We begin with various British myths (chapter eleven) where various Gallic myths were preserved by Breton fleeing the Romans. Greek (chapter twelve) and Roman (chapter thirteen) myths come next, super-imposed against detailed contextual background and going some way to exploring the complex blend of hybridized Celtic, Greek and Roman myths. Celtiberian Spanish myth (chapter fourteen) has its own deviation on the Lug myth. Discussing this allows us to take a glimpse at the Celtiberian culture. From this point on mythological relevance to the Lug tale may be disputed. Nevertheless, I include the tale of ‘’ in Norse myth (chapter fifteen), ‘Lougalbanda’ in Sumerian myth (chapter sixteen) and even ‘The Holy Grail’ (chapter seventeen). Partly this is for the sake of completeness. Other reasons for their inclusions are explained in the text.

*****************************************************

Whilst this may seem a long-winded approach to solving the enigma of Lug, there is much to be seen on the way. The journey taken suggests, rather than confirms, that Lug can be traced back to Indoeuropean origins from where different strains crossed Europe on different historical tides. The Celtic strain once dominated, but once the Celts lost their European dominance to the Greeks and Romans they became portrayed as savage barbarians. Thereafter, Celtic non-literate myths became folkloric superstitions and myth-telling became a low prestige belief-transmission system for uncultured village people. In Gaul, druids who did not flee to Britain survived inconspicuosly by taking on priestly roles; sporting new sacerdotal outfits and praying to new Gallo-Roman hybridized gods. In consequence, Celtic customs soon became archaic and fell into disuse.

This approach also holds much in common with nineteenth century comparative, historical sociology. In particular, it closely mirrors Claude Dumézil’s comparative/structuralist means of analyzing Indoeuropean societies from which he derived his three-tiered social/mythical systems of ‘priests, warriors and farmers’ – those who pray, those who fight and those who work. This was not intentional. Rather, my own research simply guided me along a similar path and though heavily criticized, Dumézil’s insights have certainly been included in the text. On the other hand, more contemporary analysees (e.g. 1960’s structuralism, phenomenology, cognitive archeaology and classicism) do play important parts in the unravelling of this story.

To conclude: There is some evidence that the name 'Lug', in Indoeuropean, meant 'lake'. We only need to reference lough (Irish), loch (Scottish), lago (Italian), lug (Polish) and lyagushka (Russian-frog) to show this. In which case, perhaps 'lug' is simply a linguistic remnant of a common geographic term of Indoeuropean origins. However, by looking at the word 'lug' in a variety of mythological contexts it becomes apparent that the word had far more important significance than just 'lake'.

This work tells of the search for that more important significance.

Phil Newman. 2008

Contents Page Part 1 1. Modern daybreak 12 2. Pre-historical origins 16

‘Out of ’ / Arrival of ‘Culture’ / Religion and Art

Renfrew’s theory / The arrival of agriculture/ metallurgy 3. Indoeuropean Lug 34

The Indoeuropean language / Proto-Indoeuropean culture

The Indoeuropean dispersal / Anatolian versus

Paleolithic continuity theory and Professor Sykes

Metallurgy and Proto-Celtic origins / Proto-Celtic divisions

4. Etymology of ‘Lug’ 64 5. The science of meaning 77

Part 2 6. The Celts 82

Cautionary notes / Background

From proto-Celtic to Celtic / Urnfield Culture

Hallstatt Culture / La Téne Culture / Celtic expansion

and migrations / Celtic religion and society

The Druids / Celtic sacrifice / Celtic gods

Celtic versus Greek philosophy /Celtic-Hinduism connections 7. The Ligures 101 8. The Segosiaves 106 9. Gaul 108

10. Lougdounos myths 111 11. Roman Lugdunum 115

Prelude to Roman arrival / Roman arrival

The founding of Lugdunum / The Lugdunum sanctuary

Lugdunum Emperors / Lugdunum under the Romans / The four acqueducts

Secular Lugdunum / Motifs and material artifacts / Religious pluralism

The Christian martyrs/ The decline of Lugdunum / Name changes Part 3 12. Lug of the British Isles 154

The Irish version /The Welsh version

The Scottish version /The Cornish version 13. Greek Lug 178

Background/ The Origin of the gods / The Myth of Perseus

The Myth of Hermes / Hermes in detail 14. Roman Lug 191

Historical background / Mythological background

The myth of Mercury / Celtic Mercury 15. The Spanish Lug 201 16. The Norse 'Loki' 205 17. The Egyptian Lug 216 18. The Sumerian 'Lugal-banda' 220 19. The Holy Grail 226 20. Universal Lug 227 21. Conclusion 228

Part 1

The present – daybreak

An early morning’s drive north, up the A7 and into Lyon, despite the traffic, is always a pleasure. Even the petrochemical plant on the town's outskirts at Feyzin delights the eye, for its giant industrial structures, lit by a myriad of bulbs, glitter in the dark like a giant Christmas trees. To the right, green waters stretch wide in a slow, sweeping arc and the Rhône and Saône rivers calmly join by sliding into each other with such gentle, solemn peace.

The Saône/Rhône confluent

How often have I now driven past this confluent, only vaguely aware of its existence beneath the concrete of the autoroute and the ’Pont Pasteur’ (Pasteur Bridge)? Yet the waters relentlessy merge with a steady timelessness that places my existence here as an inconsequential dot. From their separate sources (the Rhône from the Swiss ‘Lake Leman’ and the Saône from ‘The ’ in north-eastern France), the two rivers have furrowed a path through varying landscapes, and here, at this confluent, they join forces and marry (yes, some say as husband and wife), and continue on together to the Mediterranean three hundred kilometres south. Centuries, millenia, even geological eras have passed by, yet the rivers continue to flow and merge at this juncture.

The Rhône/Saône confluent The Rhône with the Fourviere basilica ahead.

On my early morning drives into Lyon along the A7, traffic and river flow in parallel whilst night lights of neon reflect and dance upon the water’s surface. To the left, rising slopes can be discerned. Darkened and dormant, their hump-backed forms rest slumped in slumber beneath giant concrete apartment blocks placed there some forty years ago. These were, so I am told, originally built to accommodate the influx of ‘pied-noirs’ (literally: ‘black feet’); a term which refers to those ex-patriot French returning to France following the decolonialisation of Algeria in the early 1960s.

From the east, beyond 100 kms of plains and distant alpine peaks, the sun begins its day. First signs are the skies slowly brightening through hues of mauves, maroons and purples. Then rays of gold breach the distant peaks and race across the plain to strike the next high points in their paths. The tips of Mont Thou, Mont D’Or, Mont Pilat and the Monts du Lyonnaise surrounding the Lyon basin are the first to receive the rays, becoming bathed in sunglow whilst the city below still sleeps in the darkness of night. The sun ascends higher and lowers its aim, picking out lower lying slopes. The sky then continues to brighten with dark shapes on the hillside gradually becoming distinct - here a building, there a tree. Predominantly silhouetted on the horizon, as seen from the motorway, is the bold, white shape of Fourviere basilica which stands overlooking the city like a giant, upturned elephant (as the locals say). The skies above are now a rich sky-blue, reaching high and stretching wide. Below the day begins to progress as shadows recedes. The sun inches yet higher and soon the slopes are immersed in gold to outshine the retreating night. For a while, the hill is lit up like a beacon. For a while, the hill is the light.

‘What a relief to see the sun return each morning, for all is well when cosmological routines are firmly fixed in place. When stars fall or the sun turns black, as has been known, then we begin to worry’..

Such sentiments, I suggest, the earliest inhabitant of these parts felt each dawn, for the daily re-appearance of the sun, glowing gold upon the Fourviere slopes, was viewed with joy in the re-affirmation that all was well. Nearby, across the Saône, was the hill of 'Croix-Rousse': A site of lunar worship. These were the days when neolithic man freely roamed across the plains planting his megalithic, dolmans and menhirs.

Similar was the view observed by the Greeks, Phoenicians and Celts who arrived and settled here several centuries B.C. Then, not long before the beginning of the first millenium, the same view was seen by the Romans as they marched up river from Vienne, 30 miles south, from where they had been ousted by the 'Allobrogues' (Celts). Surprising, but true! In fact, these ‘decamped Romans’ came north seeking a new site in which to settle and came across this pre-established settlement which had been called ‘Condate (‘confluent') by the Celts and ‘Luogosduonos’ by the Greeks. Then, ingratiating themselves in the manner of sequestering armies, they took off their boots and put down their roots, re-naming the site in the process. Henceforth, the city became known across the Roman Empire as ‘Colonia Copia Felix Munatia. Later on, under Emperor Claudius, the name changed to 'Lugdunum', a name which joined the three cultures: The Greek, the Celtic and the Roman. The prefix 'Lug' stood for a Celtic god, whilst in a particular Greek dialect it also meant ‘crow’. The Roman addition was the term 'dunum’, meaning 'a fort upon a hill'.

The Romans thus set up camp on Fourviere hill and swiftly transformed the site with temples, a circus, baths, forums and amphitheatres. Whilst the Celts continued to reside beside the two rivers below, the Romans lived above. They had taken the high ground that was so religiously and militaristically important.

As the turned and the years passed, the Romans remained and the city grew. In time, the forum became known as the 'old' forum; in , 'Forum Vetus'. By the this name had become 'Forvere'. Today, the name is 'Forviere'. Hence, over the passing millennia this site has been dedicated to the worship of the sun and the Celtic mother '', to the Anatolian Goddess 'Cybele', the Roman gods ', , Mercury and ' and most recently to 'The Virgin Mary' who stands atop the Fourviere basilica keeping a maternal eye on her Lyonnaise citizens below.

Opening this account in such fashion is to promote an ancient association between the Fourviere heights and solar worship, for inherent to this association is the image of Lug as a Celtic sun-god who was once worshipped by celebrants at Fourviere. There are two reasons for making this opening association:

First, this 'sun-god' representation was the one I most often came across in my early questioning. Perhaps, that's not too surprising for the Romans also initially associated Lug with their sun-god, 'Apollo'; although they switched track on finding that Lug had more in common with 'Mercury'. In fact, this sun-god image is still actively promoted is Lyon today, whether on post-cards and tourist trinkets or with the giant, anthropomorphic sun-designs projected onto city centre buildings during the annual 'fête des lumieres' (festival of lights). Hence Lug seems to be, in the collective Lyonnais consciousness anyway, still considered as a sun-god.

Second, this 'sun-god' image reflects early anthropological thinking in its obsession with solar cults. For sure, archaeological evidence suggests that prehistoric ‘creation myths’ (cosmogonies) were based on observable, astronomical phenomena - in particular, the sun, the moon and the stars. These days, however, detailing such cosmogonies in order to explain origins of religions is criticized for insufficiency. Whilst certainly being skilled observers of cosmological phenomena, the ancients were probably far more profound in their reflections upon life: Existentially and ontologically.

In sum, therefore, whilst Fourviere has been a ritual site since time immemorial, the character of Lug was harder to define than simply labelling him as a sun-god. Thus, in order to try and discover what he did once represent, I went back to the beginning: Back to the origins of human culture.

2. Pre-historic origins

‘Out of Africa’

Early settlers to the Rhône-Alps were the Celts, but they certainly weren't the earliest: Prehistoric fossil remains show that hominids walked the hills and valleys of France for at least half a million years before they Celts first arrived. In fact, the earliest dating stands at 1.6 m.y.a (million years ago) for a 'homo erectus' found at Chilac, near Briode, in the Central Massif; which is quite incredible considering that it was also around this time that homo erectus first set foot ‘out of Africa’.

For some time, two theories existed to explain humankind’s emergence ‘out of Africa’. One theory held that during the early Pleistocene epoch (1.8 m.y.a – 10,000 y.a), homo erectus had physically, technologically and socially evolved from its australopithecine ancestor and expanded its habitat by going far beyond the African frontier. Today’s homo sapiens sapiens, this theory stated, are direct descendents of these ancestral homo erectus.

At the same time, a second theory held that there was a second ‘out of Africa’ migration. This too involved hominids (larger brained, bipedal derivatives of ancestral primates), but in comparison with the first group, this second group were even more physically, socially and technologically advanced. According to this second theory, this second dispersal occured towards the end of the Palaeolithic era (780,000-10,000 y.a), during the Pleistocene epoch, and consequently both 'Neanderthalensis’ (descendents of the first group of homo erectus emigrees) and 'Cro-Magnon man’ (as the second group are named), for a while lived together in relative proximity and harmony; possibly exchanging technology tips, burial practices and resources.

Today, as a result of advances in molecular biology, this second theory is largely considered the correct one. I say ‘largely’, for there are differing opinions as to whether or not Neanderthalensis and Cro-Magnon man did actually exist at the same time. The difficulty lies in finding contemporaneous fossil evidence of their dual co-habitation. However, in favour of the co-existence theory are the Neanderthal fossilized remains found in St.Cesaire (SW.France), dated around 35,000 y.a., for also found in this area are the fossilized Cro- magnon remains from the village of Les Eyzies (S.France), dated at about 40,000 y.a. Hence, it does appear that the two species roamed southern France at the same time.

Whether the two species exchanged cultural survival techniques is more difficult to ascertain. The Neanderthals are generally associated with the ‘Mousterian’ and ‘Chatelperronian’ cultural periods in which stone tools were created with more finesses than the earlier Acheulian/homo erectus period and which used chipped off flakes to create knives, scrapers and points. They even had hand-axes within their arsenal. Cro-Magnon man, on the other hand, is particularly associated with the ‘Aurignacian’ and ‘Solutrean’ cultural periods which developed stonecraft to a real fine art. Perhaps some tools were even made for purely artistic merit, with no utilitarian value at all. Then, during the following ‘Magdellan’ period, Cro- magnon man developed skills in the use of bone, wood and antler. Daily survival skills in , fishing and clothes-making (for example) had thus become highly advanced.

It is quite possible that technology tips were exchanged, but claims concerning cultural interactions between Neanderthals and Cro-magnon man are unsubstantiated. Nevertheless, both hominid species had developed technical skills far beyond the wildest dreams of their African ancestors. This we do know, for both had begun to construct shelters; engage in rock art, cave painting and jewellery, containing (debateably) symbolic imagery, and both engaged in burial practices showing (again, debatably) the origins of beliefs in an after-life, compassion and religious sentiment.

In culturally distinguishing between the two species, however, evidence suggests that whilst both Neanderthalensis and Cro-Magnon had relatively well-developed intellects, the cultural techniques of the later were far more complex. The famous rock art paintings of bulls, bisons, and horses from the Lascaux cave in southern France and the Altimira cave in northern Spain were Cro-Magnon creations, as were the female figurines (Venuses) found across the European continent. In fact, some would say that it was with Cro-Magnon that religion, magic, ritual, art, symbolism and myth came about in order to aid humankind’s contemplations upon life, the universe and everything.

Hence, for a time, two different hominid species shared the European landmass. But then the last ice age drew to an end and the ecological balance changed signalling the end for the heavy- boned, thick-skulled Neanderthals who had, until that time, profited from the prevalence of pack-ice mammals (e.g. mammoths). With forests now covering the land, hunting strategies changed. Hunters needed to be quick, agile and skilful in the use of weapons to catch their prey. Neanderthals were not and so they died out. Only Cro-Magnon man remained to develop into 'modern man' (Homo sapiens sapiens).

Thus it was that our species arrived from its African origins. Dating methods have determined that Homo erectus first emerged ‘out of Africa’ about 1.5 m.y.a and Cro-Magnon first appeared, from his African origins, around 100,000 y.a. This later date specifically refers to fossilized remains found at Mount Carmel, in Israel, close by to which is the ‘Tabun’ site where fossilized Neanderthal remains also have been found, providing further evidence of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon’s co-existence. Note that in this story of humankind’s origins we are talking about extremely long time periods. Glib comments that humankind, genetically, is 95% chimpanzee, fail to recognize the time depth involved in that 5% difference. The separation into two separate species of primates and hominids occurred at least 20 million years ago. That’s a long time!

Fossil records detailing the primates and hominids species separation, show changes in dentition and skeletal structures. Primate’s large canines and converging tooth rows became less pronounced and more parallel in the evolved australopithecine’s mouth. Then there are the bones, such as those of the famous ‘Lucy’ discovered in the Oldavia Gorge of Ethiopia, whose fossilized remains clearly indicate that australopithecines had quite modern legs and pelvises, enabling a reasonably efficient degree of bipedalism. Coupled with this is the analysis of the australopthecine footsteps solidified forever in vocanic ash at Laetoli, in Ethiopia, showing that australopithecines walked with a bent knee, bent hip form of locomotion.

On the other hand, despite such morphological advances, australopithecine’s brain size was still relatively small, about a third the size of the modern human brain. Thus, it is quite surprising to learn that culturally, australopithecines were relatively well-endowed. Firstly, they were stone tool-makers. These implements were of the simplest kind, for sure, but they were distinctly superior to anything previously employed and were probably used for hunting. Secondly, it is quite possible that australopithecines employed verbal communication of a far more advanced form than that of their ape-cousins. Information sharing is essential for survival across the animal kingdom, whether to warn of predators or to inform of food sources. But when the passing on of information becomes more nuanced, instruction and knowledge transmission become possible. Finally, evidence also suggests that these australopithacines lived communally in incest-taboo social systems i.e. social norms, rules and values had come into play.

Arrival of ‘Culture’

The conclusion drawn by anthropologists, concerning australopithecine’s morphological and cultural development, is that these aspects are both fundamentally related i.e. the advent of bipedalism is intrinsically linked to cultural acquisition. The simple reason is that bipedalism freed up the hands so that increasingly dexterous manual activities could be engaged in. For example, in the production of stone tools. Furthermore, the passing on of such skills involved increasingly complex communication. Australopithacines with brains capable of processing this information, passed on this ability to their offspring, who inherited their parents’ larger brains. The process was thus:

Fig. 1

bipedalism manual interaction culture increase in brain size (freed up hands) with environment acquisition

This is an important conclusion. Culture arose as a result of physical, practical interaction with the environment and not directly as a result of increased brain size: That was a secondary effect. The conclusion thus contrasts with Descartes’ proposed separation between mind and body (‘the Cartesian split’). In practice, as seen in hominid development, the process was an on-going inter-relationship between mind and body in the production of culture. The Greeks later termed this process: ‘praxis’. i.e.

Fig. 2

mind

culture

body

This also explains why brain size increased after the advent of tool making and not before. Culture was, and is, a consequence of mind and body working together to solve practical

problems. In other words, brain size grows as a consequence of mind and body working together on practical projects and creating culture.

This discussion may seem distant to any analysis of Lug. However, as stated in the introduction, as I began to learn about Lug’s personality traits, I also discovered that these traits were based within mythological discourses upon cultural origins. Furthermore, I then understood that such discourses are, in fact, really philosophical attempts to understand the uniqueness of humankind, in separating from the world of beasts and acquiring ‘culture’. In the first chapter of the bible (Genesis), for example, this question is dealt with by declaring God to have placed ‘Man’ as overall guardian of beasts. Such myths were simply early attempts to understand how humankind acquired this distinctive cultural competence and are old, very old, with verbally communicated understandings going back far beyond the dawn of literacy.

Today’s modern ‘scientific’ approaches to analysing ancient thought processes are tackled under the designations of ‘cognitive anthropology’ or ‘cognitive archaeology’. The idea that we can understand how our far distant ancestors ‘thought’ may be considered contentious by some. However, as the archaeologist Professor Renfrew points out with his examination of ancient systems of weight, some concepts could only have been derived through the ‘material engagement with the world’, for weight can not be imagined ‘a priori’. Rather, the concept of weight is based on a system of physically determined equivalences i.e. it is only by holding object ‘A’ that we can feel it is as heavy as (or heavier than) object ‘B’. Thus, examinations of ancient material artefacts can tell us something about humankind’s ordering of the material world and the way our distant ancestors thought. Furthermore, on observing differing weight systems between differing cultures, it can be surmised that different cultures thought and catagorized differently.

Myths, unlike systems of weights, are not material artefacts. However, like systems of weights, they too are observeable symbolic orderings of humankind’s engagement with the world. This may be the spiritual world of gods, , devils, fairies, pixies, elves or any other sort of supernatural force or being, or it may be a fictitious fable recounting mankind’s daily life, loves, struggles and battles. Often, too, we find myths dealing simultaneously with both the spiritual and the temporal worlds by ordering humankind’s existence in relation to the two.

The ordering (‘making sense’) of humankind’s engagement with the world underlies the tale of Lug, for he existed within the world of myth and thereby contributed to the creation of culture. Of course, at the early hominid state of affairs when the first inklings of culture were just beginning to appear, Lug is still far off in the future and his connection with Lyon impossible to perceive. Yet we shall arrive there along two paths: The Greco-Roman and the Celtic, the literate and the non-literate, the mythological and the rational. Both paths, I note in advance, set out from the same Indoeuropean origin - which explains the frequent cultural and linguistic overlaps between the two.

To place a marker upon humankind’s time-line indicating an origin of culture (the ‘critical point theory’) is futile. Australopithecines, such as the famed ‘Lucy’, were using tools and operating in established social systems, and so perhaps (some may argue) a ‘critical point’ should be placed between 5-2 m.y.a. But under these guidelines many primates also exhibit ‘culture’ and primates have been around a lot, lot longer than hominids. More realistic would be to place such a point under the reign of Homo erectus when stone tools were first formed into specific, functional forms (the ‘acheulian’ period) and when fire first came under human control. But again, is a wandering troupe of bipedal primates, who can sharpen a stone and fuel a fire (to be crass about it), really what is meant by ‘culture’? The answer is not clear to define and perhaps depends on academic discipline. A specialist in the upper paleolothic period who concentrates upon the magdellan cultural period of the Cro-magnon by studying their fine cave art and skilled tool-making, may well judge this period to indicate the origin of culture. Others may not.

Indeed, paleoanthropologists are likely to place the arrival of culture with the arrival of hominids under the guidelines mentioned above. David Lewis-Williams, for example, in his examination of cave art (2002), argues that religious activity, of a type comparable to more contemporary North American and South African shamanism, was being practiced 35-40,000 years ago. In fact, the earliest dated ‘art object’ (a rock engraving from South Africa) stands at 77,000 before present. Citing nobel prize winner Gerald Edelman’s neurological work, Lewis- Williams explains that the Cro-Magnons’ brains were neurologically ‘wired’ to achieve a higher-order consciousness than their contemporary Neanderthal cousins. Specificically, the Cro-Magnon’s brain had developed the more complex thalamocortical system as an attachment to the fundamental limbic system possessed by all mammals. Thus, this neurological benefit possibly indicates the origin of culture in biological terms. Elsewhere (Mithan.S. 1994), it is argued that human cognitive evolution is a result of increased accessibility between mental

modules and this led to a greater generalized intelligence. Individual mental modules can display remarkable functioning (e.g. adult salmon remember rivers where they spawned), but in human evolution it was the collaboration of different mental modules that raised cerebral functioning to new heights. This, Steven Mithan argued, characterized the middle/upper paleolithic transition and signaled the arrival of the ‘modern human’ with significantly greater social, natural history and technical intelligence.

Whilst such paleoanthropologists may place the arrival of culture with the arrival of cerebrally advanced hominids under the guidelines mentioned above, other cognitive archaeologists, such as Professor Renfrew, prefer to place the arrival of culture at later time when the appearence of fashioned artefacts show a far more developed human engagement with the material world. This would be an engagement involving farming, pottery and textiles, in fixed village societies, dated anytime between 7,000–4,000 B.C. Neither position is definitively right or wrong and many archaeologists have their own particular slant on the matter - to numerous to mention in this very brief outline.

To sum up: For several thousand years during the upper palaeolithic era (35,000 – 17,000 m.y.a) Europe was an affluent area. It was a hunter's paradise with a high population density and such intense food acquisition that some animals actually became extinct. It was also an age of technological development in which stone tool-making techniques became highly-skilled crafts; spear throwers (atlatls), barbed harpoons, serrated knives, bone/antler borers and bows- and-arrows came into use. Furthermore, cave art flourished; figurines were fashioned; 'tailored' clothes and body ornaments were worn; burial rituals became established, and language specialised and diversified.

Religion and Art

Southern France and northern Spain have particularly rich archaeological records from this period, both in cave art and figurines, the reason being that this area contained the best hunting and fishing in Europe at that time. Furthermore, these material artefacts are clues, so say the cognitive archaeologists and anthropologists, to how our paleolithic ancestors thought. However, in reading and decoding the clues, subjectivity and objectivity frequently merge and opinions differ as to drawn conclusions. The science of cognitive archaeology and anthropology is still relatively new.

Primarily, these differences of opinion relate to the religious content of the archaeological finds. Whether the cave paintings were put on cave walls for instructional or aethetic purposes or whether they had deeper ritual or magical significance is an on-going polemic. Certainly, anthropomorphic figures placed on walls specifically chosen for their atmosphere-inducing, central-focus placing are suggestive of religious activity and in parallel we only need consider the interior designs of modern day churches and temples. However, alternatively, it could also be pointed out that art works in galleries are similarly diplayed to attract attention and aid contemplation. In which case, the distinction between art and religion may not be so great and whether the paintings were intended for artistic or religious reflexion would be a question for particularly nuanced philosophical debate.

Similar is the theological question of humankind’s growing awareness of the supernatural. Apparently, although being an intangible entity, the supernatural is not unknowable or undefinable and many have offered scholarly opinions, as well as terminologies, upon this question. For example: ‘numinous’ (Rudolf Otto.1917), ‘theonomous’ (Tillich.1965), ‘Geist’ (Hegel. 1807), even ‘collective unconscious’ (Jung.1964). Furthermore, this supernatural ‘other’ has been said to be perceived with ‘amazement and awe’ (Lowie. 1948), by ’intuition’ (Schleiermacher. 1799. Muller. 1899), by ‘insight’ (Husserl. 1965) or by ‘revelation’ (Barth. 1919). Others have stressed its particular association with ‘liminal zones’, such as are passed through during rites of passage, or transition (Van Gennep. 1908, V. Turner. 1967). ‘Liminal objects’ employed during these rite have been defined as ‘set apart and forbidden’ (E. Durkheim. 1964), whilst ‘liminal places’ (Renfrew. 2005) are those places considered sacred and which focus attention upon symbolic forms of deities. I list varying approaches to this question simply to indicate the richness of thought to its analysis: But the list is by no means exhaustive.

Linked, is the tale of humankind’s emerging spirituality and, as with the question of culture, marking a ‘critical point’ for the arrival of spirituality depends largely on definitions which, in this case, are particularly subjective and personal. Both Cro-Magnon and Neanderthalensis, as we saw, possibly held loosely defined religious conceptions. However, whether they believed in a supernatural ‘other’, or held ‘spiritual sentiments’, is less easy to determine. Cave paintings could have been intended to imbue rituals with a certain reliogiosity or they could have simply been instructional devices. And the same can be said of many other prehistoric material artefacts with no definitive answer either way.

Evidence of ritual within the late paleolithic comes largely from monuments of antiquity which have lasted to the modern day; specifically, megaliths and stone circles. The astronomical significance of some of these monuments (e.g. Stonehenge) is well documented, whilst accompanying barrows or ‘tumuli’ containing ancestral skeletal remains have long been subjected to archaeological scrutiny. However, whether, or what kind of, ritual practices occurred at theses sites continues to be debated. Attention focusing centres they most undoubtably were, as belied by their circular structures, and it does not stretch imaginations to far to picture such sites peopled by robed ceremonialists, on moonlit nights, enacting propriation or transition rituals to the sound of chants, drums and horns; especially if one has ever attended such a modern times reconstruction. In fact, recent studies of the acoustic properties of Stonehenge suggest that some stones were purposely so placed in order to effect particular ‘mystical’ resonances and enhance the mystery of inner circle affairs, whose goings- on were blocked out from the view of outer circle celebrants. Nevertheless, despite such studies, the question of emerging spirituality remains. Do reverent remembrances of ancestors buried nearby, or the saluting of celestial objects, suffice to constitute spirituality or do sacred symbols indicating the involvement of supernatural divine beings need to be involved? That is an open anthropological question.

A further polemic concerning cave art is the gender of the few displayed human figures (97% of cave paintings are of animals) and figurines which, in both cases, are pre-dominantly female. A quick scan of magazines available for browsing in my dentist’s waiting room recently revealed the same predominance, not to mention the shelves in my local newsagents! For some archaeologists, this predominance indicates a female-centred, matrifocal, neolithic society worshipping a great Earth Mother or Mother Goddess. This suggestion was initially given academic credibility through the scholarship of Professor Marija Gimbatas and her analyses of figurines found at the archaeological site of Çatal Hüyük in Turkey. Her conclusions were first published in 1974 in a book entitled ‘Gods and Goddesses of old Europe’; though in the second edition the publishers decided to change the title to ‘Goddesses and Gods of old Europe’. Feminists the world over, at a time when ‘bra-burning’ was all the rage, seized upon Professor Gimbatas’ conclusions (not to mention the publisher’s re-titling) with relish. The ‘truth’ of her assertions, however, has since been questioned. But definitely not, I quickly add, her academic credibility.

It is thus evident that the paleolithic period was a very culturally rich period, during which humankind definitively arrived and with a far more substantial ‘material engagement with the

world’ than had previously existed. This included art, religion and contemplation. Then the climate changed and the great, ice age glaciers retreated, which seriously affected food supply for traditional, fast-food prey animals disappeared and, in consequence, paradise was lost. In response, social organizations had to modernize to adapt. Greater reliance was thus placed on the domestication of plants and livestock, settlements were set up and new skills were learnt e.g. irrigation, animal husbandry, plant propagation, pottery, metallurgy and construction.

Renfrew’s theory

It is at the tail end of this ‘upper paleolithic era’ that the archaeologist Professor Renfrew placed the origin of culture. He arrived at this conclusion by noting the time-gap between the upper paleolithic, when humankind’s neurological make-up was well-developed, and the appearance of the first ‘villages’ (7,000 y.a.). That period intrigued him for it constituted a time-gap of at least ten thousand years before technological advances really took off. Seeking a reason for this technological delay, Renfrew analysed cereal grains taken from archaeological excavations at ancient village sites in the Middle East and from these analyses concluded that these first villages appeared with the introduction of farming.

Thus stated, the theory sounds incredibly mundane. However, on accepting that Palaeolithic homo sapiens was already intellectually well-developed and on recalling that cultural process operates through a mind-body dualism of engagement with the world, the importance of farming to human development can not be underestimated. This was the catalyst that promoted the learning of new skills, such as those mentioned above – irrigation, pottery, metallurgy etc.

Farming thus triggered a revolutionary new stage in the history of human culture, which Renfrew termed the ‘techtonic stage’. His theory, when first published, caused quite a storm within the archaeological world, for it placed the origin of ‘modern civilisation’ several thousand years earlier than had previous models - and it is still hotly debated today.

Yet, there was a second point of high significance to Renfrew’s theory, which was that this ‘techtonic stage’ had no singular point of geographical origin. Equally, it arrived, around 7,000 B.C., in the Americas, South East , Australia and Western Europe through the introduction of farming. This novel notion was quite a blow to those classical ‘diffusionists’ who liked to think of as the ‘cradle of civilisation’ from where all other cultures could trace their roots. On the contrary, farming was a universally born phenomenon and civilisations had grown independently.

The arrival of agriculture

Following on from Renfrew’s theory has been the question of ‘why’ agriculture came into being, considering that hunting and gathering from nature’s larder provided a constant supply of fresh food. Furthermore, there is still the question of why did it take so long to arrive? These are questions that should be considered separately.

Until recently, the answer to the first question has been that agriculture secured higher production of food resources necessary to support growing populations. However, considering that agriculture also entailed combatting crop disease and soil degradation, irrigation, and the tending and protecting of livestock, all of which meant harder work, the question has remained - why bother?

There is a recent ‘cognitive’ answer to this question (D. Lewis-Williams & D. Pearce.2006) which is to upturn the Marxist view that economic conditions (e.g. food production) determine cultural attributes (e.g. belief systems) and instead consider that agricultural practices were a consequence of religious practices. That is to say, cultural superstructure determined economic base. This solution suggests that neolithic (symbolic) thought eventually led to changes in subsistence patterns. Thus Renfrew’s ‘techtonic revolution’ was preceeded and determined by a ‘symbolic revolution’ (a termed coined by French archaeologist, Jacques Cauvin) in which symbols arose to order human experience.

This theory helps explain Renfrew’s ‘time-gap’ (between the end of the culturally rich paleolithic and the introduction of farming) for it was a time during which the brain’s neurological ‘hard-wiring’ was slowly developing symbolic constructions to aid humankind’s unique reasoning abilities. Other animals do not have such abilities for this is highly advanced cerebral functioning.

This neurological ‘hard-wiring’ has been alluded to, by philosophers, throughout the millenia, although perhaps it was Emmanual Kant who provided the most articulated, philosophical rationale to prove its existence. The main theme of Kant’s most well known work (‘A critique of pure reason’) was geared to explaining how certain ‘synthetic’ (experiencial) knowledge could be known ‘a priori’. Apparently, so Kant’s argument went, this is possible due to twelve ‘thought categories’ programmed into the ‘hard-wiring’ of the human brain and these enable certain concepts (e.g. unity and plurality) to be ‘instinctively’ known prior to being explained.

In more recent times, the structuralist theories of the French anthropologist Claude Levi- Strauss followed a similar line. Namely, that underlying cultural aspects (e.g. linguistics, myth and kinship patterns), at a neurological level, there exists a certain humankind universalism. In other words, all humans, and all human cultures, categorize in a similar way, at base level, due to the neurological similarity of all human brains. And the way they categorize, at this base level, like computers, is to operate on a series of binary opposites. For example: male and female, light and dark, right and left, raw and cooked, nature and nurture.

Much criticism has been directed at Levis-Strauss’s structuralism since it was first proposed, not least its scientifically inhumane empiricism and its a-historical outlook. Perhaps he should have included with it a sprinkling of hermeneutics to explore humankind’s quest for ‘meaning’ and a dash of Hegel’s dialectics to account for historical cultural change. However, a priori or not, human knowledge clearly deepened and varied through the paleolithic era as neurological functioning grew in complexity and efficacity, and an important facet of this increased cerebral complexity was the acquisition of symbolic thought.

Hence, again we see this synchronous development of cerebral ‘hard-wiring’ and culture: Mind and matter, as brothers-in-arms, engaging with the material world both mentally and physically, until, somewhere along the mental development road, probably as a very slow awakening, an awareness of the ability of symbolic forms to encode and communicate cultural ideas came into being and assisted in the conjectures and passing on of abstract thought. It is this that the previously mentioned Gerard Edelman defined as a ‘higher-order of consciousness’ and it arose, according to the previously mentioned Steven Mithran, through increasing accessibility between ‘mental modules’.

Linguists may well highlight the importance of language in this emergence of symbolic thought, and with good reason. Alternatively, some cognitive archaeologists, such as D.Lewis- Williams and D.Pearce., have focused upon the cerebral ectopic imagery experienced during shamanic trances as providing the stimulus for the production of symbolic thought. Whatever one’s academic background, it’s quite possible that these leads are all ‘chickens and eggs’. More to the point is the arrival of symbolism per se (which Cauvin termed ‘a revolution’), and its subsequent effect on the human species.

Thus, we return to Cauvin’s ‘symbolic revolution’ which he considered to be a universal, yet independently occurring, event and which eventually initiated farming and subsequently,

Renfrew’s ‘techtonic revolution’. How so? Well, again there is some explaining to do and the explanation provided by D. Lewis-Williams and D. Pearce goes as follows:

Apparently, paleolithic-neolithic dealers in symbolic representations divided the universe into three layers: The underworld, this world and the celestial world. These ritual practitioners, or shamans, entered trances in order to engage in ‘transcosmological’ travel, voyaging between the three cosmic levels. Such shamans, it is said, held positions of high status in their communities, rather like the high priests of today, and in the intra-shaman politico-religious jostling for prestige, possession of a fine collection of sacrificial beasts enhanced their rises to the top. Animals used for sacrifice, it should be noted, were rather special, even ‘out-of-the- ordinary’, and keeping eyes on such as prized beasts promoted the practice of keeping them to hand, ready for sacrifice, rather than letting them roam free on the plains. Hence the origin of animal husbandry.

There is also some evidence that ‘certain’ animals were in fact totemic ‘spirit-animals’, with whom shamans communed in order to locate the herds of ‘real-world animals’ for hunting purposes. In which case, these ‘certain’ animals became particularly ‘sacred’ and this too led to the keeping of livestock, which in turn led to a more sedentary existence, cereal cultivation and farming.

This may, at first sight, seem rather far-fetched. However, anthropological studies of Amazonian Indian shamans, Australian aboriginal shamans and African San bushmen shamans (for starters), illustrate more contemporary examples of transcosmological travel and what they all have in common is the shamans’ ability to commune with spirit-entities abiding in the different cosmic levels (such as ‘spirit-animals’), and the use of livestock for ritual sacrifice; whether for appeasement or appropriation. By these means, shamans are able to cure all manner of ills, social or pathological.

Perhaps now, considering the all magico-religous, symbolic, neurological developments necessary to reach the stage for the adoption of farming, we can better appreciate the question of ‘why it took so long to arrive’, given that the paleolithic era had already showed such impressive cultural advances.

Fig.3

Paleolithic Neolithic

Mind

culture art & religion symbolic thought farming techtonic revolution

Body

As the techtonic revolution took off, pottery became the first major technological breakthrough of the (neolithic) era. Through time and process, this pottery industry eventually led to innovations in bronze, copper and iron working. And as we have seen time and time again since, scientific innovation very quickly becomes taken up by the military. Acquisition of the latest high-tech materials with which to engage in war generally determines the political landscape: So it was with the arrival of metals.

Metallurgy

Metallurgy did not arrive by chance or as a sudden, inspired, revolutionary breakthrough. On the contrary, metallurgical techniques arrived slowly as a consequence of improved techniques in the firing and glazing of pottery. A steady, controlled flow of hot air was required to evenly bake pots, whilst the addition of minerals such as lead, graphite or arsenic, coloured them. It was this ‘glazing’ process that pushed the firing technology into new areas for it required much higher temperatures.

A particular case is that of graphite (i.e. pure carbon) which was used extensively for glazing in the Balkans several thousand years B.C. Archaeologists now reconstruct the potter’s operational difficulties in using this substance by noting how the flow of air had to be strictly controlled: Too much air and ferrous salts in the clay rise to the surface and turn the object a rose colour, not the desired silvery-grey. Too little air, on the other hand, and the fire can’t reach the required temperature.

The skill of controlling fire was, therefore, essential to a potter and these advanced pottery pyrotechniques eventually became employed solely in the production of minerals themselves. First, they were used in the melting of copper and then they were used to the alloying of copper with tin in the production of bronze. However, whilst copper ore could be quarried from numerous sources across Europe, the source of the tin is harder to locate and remains a particular, archaeological polemic.

Summary

School history books, from my personal recall, once liked to show images of peasants dressed in ragged hides and squelching through the mud, between wattle-and-daub huts in order to inform us of northern European neolithic daily life. Then, in comparison, there were the glowing pictures of the great, ancient civilisations of the Mediterrannean and Mesopotamia: The magnificent, golden pyramids of Egypt; the luxuriant hanging gardens of Babylon; brown- skinned workers in fertile, irrigated fields harvesting beneath a shimmering sun. The message was simple: Whilst Neolithic man plodded on in the northern Europe mire, the Mediterranean world was experiencing a cultural growth spurt. Pyramids were erected, writing was invented and international trade links became established.

This, then, was considered to be a time when the Eastern Mediterranean flourished as the hub of civilisation while the Western portion veered somewhere towards the edge of the world. It was a time when brave sailors set off from the east, heading west across the waters into the unknown; despite tales of sea monsters and devilish gods. It was a time before the culturally rich ‘East’ had diffused their knowledge into the culturally poor ‘West’.

Nowadays, this image is questioned and the chronological map slightly re-arranged. Whereas previous generations of archaeologists may have rested content with the idea of culture radiating out solely from the Middle East, this is more difficult to accept today when artefacts discovered in the Balkans are shown to be older than artefacts found at Troy, or when the megaliths in the Isles of are shown to have been erected several millenia before the pyramids.

Nevertheless, before throwing the baby out with the bath water, there is no doubt that the Eastern Mediterrannean did considerably influence Western European developments occurring from the Danube basin to the Atlantic zone, even if those more westerly areas did pre-date ‘some’ Eastern Mediterrannean settlement sites. I emphasize ‘some’ not to lose sight of

Professor Renfrew’s Anatolian theory in which farming spread westwards around 7,000 B.C. and the fact that the earliest finds in this region are from Jericho dated around 8,000 B.C.

On the European continent, farming came about after the last ('wurm') ice age drew to an end. Then, as the climate warmed, the ice sheets receded. Furthermore, as the ice-age hunting stocks diminished, forests grew and families settled down to a more sedentary lifestyle rearing livestock and growing crops; whether influenced by Anatolian ideas or not. Settlers also spread inland from coastal regions and in France they reached such areas as the ‘Central Massif’ where numerous megalithic 'dolmans', 'menhirs’, 'tumuli' and stone circles remain to remind us of their presence. These were constructed during the later paleolithic time zone known as the ‘Mesolithic’ (12,000- 5,000 y.a.).

In Lyons, the earliest finds are flint tools dating back to 6,000 B.C., discovered on the Vaise plains a few kilometres to the north of the confluent. Flint, of course, was the most highly desirable paleolithic commodity and communities arose around its provisionment. Flint had the advantage over stone in being easier fashioned to produce arrowheads, sickles, axes etc. This was by a process known as ‘flint knapping’ in which one piece of flint was hit with another to produce ‘flakes’. However, unlike stone, flint could only be procurred from chalk regions.

Archaeological discoveries of amphora pots show that cultural exchanges with the Mediterrannean area was established early on, whilst the appearence of the copper objects indicates the arrival of metallurgy. This began as the chalcolithic (copper) age, the impact of which was to change human history for ever.

********************************************

The principle object of this early chapter has been to introduce cultural process. Whilst archaeologists and paleoanthropologists debate times and places for the origin of culture, consider how much more difficult, or vague, such discussions must have been for those in pre- history with no modern dating techniques and only their shared contemplations. It is out of these musings that myths arose. And these, possibly, included the myth of Lug.

The founder of British anthropology, E.B. Tylor, back in 1871 defined culture as:

‘…that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society’.

This definition remains steady today, albeit with minor variations and modifications. Most introductory text books on the subject, for example, will also include chapters on kinship, politics, religion/magic and ritual, production, money and social change. The question of how culture is passed on inter-generationally is observed these days by practising anthropologists. The question of how culture began, on the other hand, has always been with humankind; now and millenia ago.

Thus, Homo sapiens sapiens, as humankind is technically called, was firmly installed upon the face of the earth, from Australia to the Americas, by the late, upper paleolithic period, having updated from Cro-magnon man. In Europe, this was a time of high culture and the slow development of symbolic, religious thought. Finally, the advent of farming, sedentarism and the techtonic revolution signalled a new stage in human development-the neolithic era, which brought with it the concept of personal property. Crops, land and water all needed protecting and defending.

This was an era of tribes bordering tribes with unmarked borders and unwritten treaties. It was a time of wavering peace and of settlements becoming increasingly fortified to protect inhabitants and their material goods. It was also a time in which contact between tribes led to cultural unification and a new, distinctive, cultural form appeared in Europe originating from either in Central Asia or in the Near East (a polemical point later discussed). This cultural form was associated with a particular language, ‘proto-Indoeuropean’, which eventually diversified into many of today’s languages. One diversified form became known and documented as ‘Celtic’.

‘Celtic culture’ is associated with a group of ‘’ which became distinct from the Indoeuropean language around 1500 B.C. Indoeuropean spawned many variant languages across Europe and the Indian sub-continent, with each varient holding similar lingustic features

in common at a fundamental level. Hence, the Celtic language of today has linguistic similarities to Greek, Italian, German and English, Sanskrit, Iranian and Hittite.

Whilst the chicken-and-egg debate continues over whether language characteristics are derived from cultural attributes, or vis-a-versa, there is evidently some link between the two: Cultural concepts are formulated within linguistic frameworks just as geometric concepts are formulated within mathematical frameworks. Hence, Indoeuropean variants, in holding Indoeuropean linguistic features in common, also hold cultural features in common.

One example of this is ‘lug’. The word ‘lug’ has diversified over the millennia along varying language tracks, but its root form is still ‘lug’. Likewise, the concept of ‘lug’ has varied over the millenia through differing cultural contexts, but the base linking concept has not. Hence, a good etymological starting point is to examine the word ‘lug’ is the proto-Indoeuropean language. From there, we should be better placed to examine ‘lug’ in other, later, cultural contexts (e.g. Celtic, Greek), and from there an understanding of the Gallic ‘Lug’ may be within our grasp.

3. Indoeuropean Lug

Nominating a geographic region from where the Indoeuropean language originated (as ‘proto- Indoeuropean’) has been a task for both paleolinguistics and archaeologists. Nevertheless, political claims of Indoeuropean heritage has, occassionally, been central to the creation of national identity; which has somewhat confused the issue. ’s National Socialists prior to the second world war, for example, declared Germany to be the geographic origin of the Indoeuropean language and by extension claimed that the German people were a superior ‘’ race. But they are not alone. Such claims have been made by other nations. For example, there still exists the ‘Out of India’ theory and the ‘Armenian hypothesis’.

Actually, the term ‘Indoeuropean’ applies solely to a spoken language. That is, Indoeuropean peoples, as such, did not exist. Rather, there existed a confederation of Central Asian neolithic pastoralists who had initially migrated east from their Anatolian homeland between 7,000 and 5,000 years B.C. Central Asia, note, comprises a very large area stretching from the Black Sea to the Gobi Desert and within this area several distinctive ‘cultures’ arose, namely: Sroubnaïa, Andronovo, Keltaminar, Dagestan, Tagisken, Tazabagyab, Aminabad, Tchoust, Afanasievo and the Karasouk. In addition to their linguistic commonalities, pottery finds also link these cultures together by comparing common styles and techniques employed in their making. .

This ‘Central Asian area’ is referred to as a ‘rain-fed’ area, indicating that it receives more than the critical rainfall limit of 300 mm per year necessary for the growth of wild cereals, such as wheat and , and can therefore support pastoralism. The southern limit of this rain-fed area largely borders the Zagros and Taurus mountains (from Southern Iran to Turkey) and down the flood plains of the levant, wherein Jericho (Jordan valley) and Çatal Hűyűk (Turkey) early on became major settlement sites. In fact, Jericho was established the first, having been dated back to the ‘pre-pottery neolithic period’ of around 8,000 B.C. South and east of this ‘rain-fed’ limit (i.e. the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia) only became settled once irrigation techniques had been sufficiently well developed to benefit from the waters of the Euphrates and the Tigris.

Hence, speakers of proto-Indoeuropean resided in the higher grounds north of this ‘rain-fed limit’. Further south was too dry and would only be inhabited once irrigation techniques enabled agriculture to develop. The inhabitants of this vast northerly area were not united into

any single political entity. They were, however, linked by cultural contact; as the previously mentioned pottery finds show and by their linguistic similarity. Furthermore, all had originally migrated east out of .

Hittite was the first definitive ‘language’ to emerge from proto-Indoeuropean. In fact, Hittite originated in Anatolia, before moving south of the ‘rain-fed limit’ when irrigation and agriculture opened that area up for settlement. Hittite thus diverged early on from the proto- Indoeuropean language/dialects spoken by their Central Asian cousins who migrated out of Anatolia. Thus, at this era, we begin to see the early emergence of the Hittite state as a political entity: Language, political unity and national identity are all closely linked.

The culture of proto-Indoeuropean speaking people

Evidence relating to proto-Indoeuropean culture comes partly through archaeology, but largely through ‘glottochronology’: The backward-focusing analysis of modern Indoeuropean languages looks to their common points of origin in order to tell us something about the lives of the proto-Indoeuropean speakers who spoke the original ‘root’ words. It is thus reasoned that proto-Indoeuropean speakers not only utilized the wheel, but also engaged in weaving, plaiting, the tying of knots (possibly, for magical purposes as the deceased were bound), basketry and the erection of fences.

Yet, when combined with anthropological and archaeological interpretations, glottochronology elicits far more about proto-Indoeuropean cultures. For example, it is suggested that pastoralism was adopted in this difficult, dry environment because sheep and goats could always be kept on the move in the search of water; thereby supplying milk and meat throughout the year. Evidence of other subsistence strategies also exist e.g. hunting-and- gathering (particularly apricots and pomegranets) and cattle rearing, as well fishing and the collecting of shell-fish from the inland lakes. Horses too finally appeared on the scene, though the dating of their domestication is a polemic to be discussed later.

Alongside such evidence for semi-nomadic pastoralism, neolithic settlements have been uncovered. Analysis of accompanying burial chambers shows that chiefs were interred with their belongings and it may even be possible that they were buried with their wives; reminding us of the Hindu practice of ‘sutee’. Chiefs measured their importance through their livestock.

Particularly prestigious was cattle. There is also some suggestion that chiefs were considered sacred and that they may have played a dual chief/high priest role.

Within these societies, French academic George Dumézil proposed his three-tiered, Indoeuropean class system whereby sovereignity was shared between priets and warriors; both ruling over peasants. In fact, Dumézil proposed that this model originated in Indo-Iranian culture from where it spread throughout the Indoeuropean ‘family’. The three classes, or castes, Dumézil related to three social functions. Thus the priests dealt with the powerful and unpredictable forces of the ‘otherworld’, whilst the warriors were more juridical and dealt with affairs of ‘this world’. Apparently, these were young men who lived by warrior ‘codes’ and underwent rites in which they ritually identified with wolves and dogs. Finally, there were the peasants who dealt with productivity, such as farming and the crafts. This triple caste system, as a base to Indoeuropean society, has since been used to explain the common triple nature of gods and goddesses within Greek, Latin and Celtic mythologies. Mother goddesses, for example, frequently appear in triplicate, whilst male gods are often portrayed with either three faces or even three phalluses. However, Dumézil has also been criticized for speculating far from the facts. For example, critics point out that most Indoeuropean caste systems and mythological pantheons are not perceived of as three-way divisions by those society members. But then, whose ideas are not challenged once written? Certainly, throughout this work, his model will be frequently referred to.

Glottochronology also reveals that proto-Indoeuropean societies were patrilineal i.e descent was traced through the male line. This question had been in the balance since the days when early anthropologists (in particular Bachofen 1861, McClennan 1865, Morgan 1877) reasoned that humankind had developed from its ‘promiscuous, primitive hoard’ by fighting Malthusian/Darwinian ‘survivals of the fittest’. It was also proposed, in this model, that matrilineal descent was passed through en route to patrilineality and was thus an earlier descent pattern. These days, anthropological studies show that descent patterns vary according to cultural contexts and anyway, evaluations of humankind developing through evolutionary stages are now eyed with caution.

One must not forget, though, that this notion has seen a recent resurgence in popularity as women’s rights have become high on the political agenda and prehistoric, mother goddess- centred matriarchies have been propounded; particularly by the feminists. Professor Marija

Gimbatas, for example, who helped promote this idea through her work on Anatolian figurines (as discussed), favoured the goddess-centred theory and thereby helped to establish feminist archaeology. Nevertheless, she also argued that ‘patrilineal’ Indoeuropeans migrated into the Balkans from Central Asia around 4,000 B.C. to overpower indigenous ‘matrilineal’ societies.

In religion, speakers of proto-Indoeuropean were polytheistic and here, yet again, opinions differ with regard to which came first: polytheism or monotheism. In fact, early anthropological theories (e.g. Taylor. 1871) strongly favoured the idea that religion began with ‘animism’. This notion states that once humankind became aware of his ‘other-self’ (i.e. soul), either through dreams and trances or by extrapolating a general awareness of dualisms in other aspects of life (night and day, sun and moon, male and female), he then applied ‘other-self’ notions to animals, plants, and even inanimate objects. Following this stage, as many other such theories suggested, religion progressed through increasingly more advanced ‘stages, from magic to religion, before finally arriving at today’s, ‘enlightened’, empirical, scientific positivism. Such theories, I repeat, arose in the early days of anthropological hypothesizing and have since been subject to critical analysis. They have never completely disappeared though and occassionally receive a revised re-dusting.

Concerning the proto-Indoeuropean scenario, Max Muller (leading Sanskritist and Indoeuropean expert of the early twentieth century) should be referenced due to his ‘origin-of- religion’ hypothesis, arrived at through translating ancient vedic verses (1889). Muller’s thesis was that whilst individual ‘Aryan’ tribes had their own tutelery gods, by coalescing towards an overall ‘Indoeuropean identity’ a chief, overall god (‘Djeus’) arose. These tutelery gods, Miller argued, had initially arisen from psychological reactions to natural phenomena which installed in humankind a certain, intuitive ‘perception of the infinite’. In Muller’s own words, the Indoeuropean deities (‘tutelery gods’) took their names from:

‘...the great phenomena of nature, of fire, water, rain and storm, of sun and moon, of heaven and earth.’ (my italics)

Proto-Indoeuropeans also, reportedly, engaged in sacrifice; which is not too surprising for anthropologists have frequently cited this act as central to religious practice. In particular, the works of Robertson-Smith (1889), Durkheim (1912), and Hubert and Mauss (1899) long ago set the trend of examining sacrifice in relation to totemism (the ritualizing and consolidating of

kinship ties), and relating the custom to the origins of religion. Other, varied interpretations have also been offered. For example: to pay homage (Tylor. 1871); to make amends for wrong deeds (Robertson-Smith 1889); to symbolize and effect rejuvenation (Frazer.1890); to symbolize the abnegation of the individual ‘self’ for the sake of the community (Durkheim.1912); to determine and maintain the different realms between gods and ‘men’ (Levis-Strauss. 1966), to sancify (or purify) a participant undergoing a rite of passage (Leach.1976). Perhaps all explanations can be invoked to account for sacrifice in different cultural contexts. But one thing appears certain: The centrality of sacrifice within religious activity. Exactly what form, or forms, this may have taken for proto-Indoeuropean speakers is not easy to determine. However, evidence suggests that this may have included .

On the other hand, perhaps more philosophically, the proto-Indoeuropean suffix ‘ghosti’ has been noted, which refers to the mutual obligations experienced between worshippers and gods. In fact, as can easily be seen, ‘ghosti’ has separated into two individual words which have reached modern English as ‘guest’ and ‘host’: Sacrifice entails obligations, given and received.

Time, for proto-Indoeuropeans, was cyclical. Both the skies and seasons turned around them as they were born, grew old and died. It was also an ecological notion, for death could be observed to bring forth regeneration: New shoots grow on dead trees. This eternal cycle of life and death (transmigration) was upheld in Indoeuropean thought as a wheel representing the rotating cosmos and revolving time. The wheel also symbolised the sun; often as a ‘spoked’ wheel with ‘spokes’ radiating out as sun’s rays. Sometimes this image was more abstract and visualised as a swastika. And possibly such ‘solar’ symbolism inferred a solar or a sky god; perhaps being one and the same. Either way, their pre-historic prevalence gave support to several Victorian ‘origin of religion’ theories.

The chief god, for speakers of proto-Indoeuropean, was known as ‘Djeus Pater’. This was a god of the daylight sky, from whose name was later derived Zeus (Greek), Jupiter (Roman), Dyaus (Sanskrit), Dievas (Baltic), and Tiwaz (Germanic). Quite possibly there also existed a ‘race of gods’, such as later became recognized in both (i.e. the ‘Aesir’ and the ‘Vanir’) and (i.e. the ‘Titans’ and the ‘Olympians’). In which case, it has been suggested that this Indoeuropean race of gods included ‘Ausos’, (a god of the dawn and hence the Greek word ‘eos’), ‘Perqunos’ (later the Celtic thunder god, ), ‘Poseidon’

(later a Greek sea god) and also a great Mother goddess. Furthermore, since tales of world trees and the slaying of serpents are common throughout the Indoeuropean world, it is suggested that these themes originated with the speakers of proto-Indoeuropean.

Another way to approach this question of proto-Indoeuropean religion is to apply what is known as ‘Fantalov’s reduction’: There is more than one way to skin a cat. Alex Fantalov was a Russian academic who proposed the existence of five archetypes which were present in all Indoeuropean mythologies. These are listed below in the first column. The second and third columns give corresponding proto-Indouropean names and various Indoeuropean derivations. Fig.4

Fantalov’s proto- archytypes Indoeuropean god Indoeuropean language derivations

God of sky Djeus Pater Zeus (Greek), Jupiter (Roman), Dievas (Baltic), Tiwaz (Germanic), Dispater ( Gaulois)

Goddess Dhgom Mater Dhe Motė (Albanian), Zamyat (Avestan), Zemes Mate (Latvian), Demeter (Greek/Gaulois)

Thunder Perqunos Taranis (Gaulois), Tarhunt (Hittite), Perkunos (Baltic), Perendi (Albanian), Parjanya (Vedic), Fyorgyn (Norse)

Earth/underworld Poti Daon Poseidon (Greek) (note: ‘don’=waters. = Vedic + Celtic goddess)

Wélos Uranus (Greek), Varuna (Sanskrit), , Veles (Slavic), Velnias (Lithuanian)

Culture hero ---- Hermes (Greek), Mercury (Roman)

The culture hero/proto-Indoeuropean slot I leave blank. Generally, these are earthly gods, concerned with agriculture and promoting the arts and crafts. They are also said to be the sons of sky or thunder gods in which they play a mediating role between the heavens and the underworld. This is apparent from any reading of the myths of Hermes or Mercury.

This approach may lead to interesting results in our search for Lug. Recall the Lugdunam myth (p.4) detailing the arrival of the crows; those flying, scavaging, harbingers of death. Recall too, that in the dialect of the brothers who were digging the city foundations ‘lougos’ signified ‘crow’ and this word lent itself to naming the city (‘Lougosdounos’). Crows in the skies, arriving in autumn are associated with death. Furthermore, they also mediate (traverse) between the heavens and the underworld; as do cultural heros such as Hermes and Mercury. Crows can thus be said to be symbolically equivalent to cultural heros and this suggests that Lug (or ‘lougos’) himself could fill that cultural hero slot.

Perhaps the front cover photograph now has greater significance?

The Indoeuropean language

As previously stated, ‘glottochronology’, or ‘paleolinguistics’, applies a comparative method to examine ancient languages. This method is one in which different languages are analysed to find common words. The assumption is then made that these common words are derived from a parent language; which tells us something about the vocabulary, grammar and phonology employed by that parent language, as well as the culture in which the language was embedded.

For example:

English Welsh Sanskrit Tocharian ox ych uksan okso

Thus, the similarity of the words above (ox, ych, uksan, okso) indicates that they were all derived from the same parent language, known as Indoeuropean. We can also assume that oxen were common beasts to speakers of Indoeuropean. Hence, we learn something about Indoeuropean culture.

The common parentage of Indoeuropean languages was first noted by one Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) who divided them up into four groups. This notion was then taken up in 1796 by an English judge residing in Calcutta: ‘Sir William Jones’. In addition to his judicial duties, Sir Willam Jones was a linguist who learnt many (25) European languages. During his northern Indian sejourn he maintained his interest in languages and applied himself to the studying of Sanskrit. Thus it was that he too noticed similarites between Sanskrit, Greek and Latin, concluding that they must have ‘sprung from the same source’. On delving deeper into this hypothesis, Sir William Jones found that such linguistic similarities also occured within Persian, Gothic and Celtic. Finally, Augustus Schleicher (1821-68) came along and created the Indoeuropean language family tree involving language sub-families.

Since these early observations, linguistics has uncovered far more about this Indoeuropean language family; so called due to its linguistic branches being spoken on both the Indian sub- continent and in Europe. For example, more recent studies into Hittite show it also to be an Indoeuropean language and by observing its divergence from Indoeuropean the suggestion is that it evolved in Anatolia. This is a conclusion that would give yet further weight to Professor Renfrew’s hypothesis.

In addition, analyses of the Indoeuropean branches have provided the following conclusions about the Indoeuropean language. For this section, I have relied primarily upon the work of Charles Barber (2000).

Phonology

Indoeuropean was characterised by musical accent, or intonation, rather than by stress. In contrast, Proto-Germanic systematically laid stress on the first syllable. This was also a practice taken up by ancient Greek.

Indoeuropean consisted largely of ‘stop consonents’. These are singular sounds (phonemes) made by stopping the flow of air out of the mouth, before releasing the pressure in the creation of the sound. Different forms exist:

aspirated (bh, dh,gh) - large release of breath as sound is made voiced (b,d,g) - use vocal chords. Heard as a ‘buzzing in the ears’ before sound is made. voiceless (p,t,k) - don’t use vocal chords. No ‘buzzing in the ears’ before sound is made. labialized (gwh, gw, kw) - involves rounding of the lips, before sound is made.

Grammar

Indoeuropean employed ‘inflexion’ to a large extent. Thus, in contrast to English which relies on word order and prepositions to show who was doing what to whom, Indoeuropean conveyed this information by means of word-endings (suffixes). Latin and German do the same using five different inflexions ‘cases’ (nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative and ablative). Indoeuropean used eight.

Inflexion was also used widely to show verb tense. However, verbs inflexion generally came about through the changing of vowels within the verb stem (e.g. I sing, I sang). It was proto- Germanic that began the practice of changing verb endings to show verb tense (e.g. I walk, I walked).

Furthermore, Indoeuropean employed the ‘declension’ of nouns and adjectives to show gender, singularity and plurality. This practice was also applied to articles and pronouns.

Vocabulary

Indoeuropean vocabulary is suggestive of an agricultural as well as a semi-nomadic culture. This is apparent from the following list of words common to the language:

Cattle, sheep, horses, wheel, axle, grain, plough, pottery, weaving, rivers and streams (not sea), daughter-in-law (not son), sky god.

The fact that rivers and streams are included, but not the sea, suggests an inland setting for the language. The agricultural vocabulary predominace perhaps supports Renfrew’s view that farming was integral to the emergence of the ‘techtonic stage’, with its associated growth of settlements and communities. The fact that daughter-in-law is included but not son-in-law, suggests patrilineal descent whereby daughter-in-laws come to live with their husband’s families after getting married. The fact that there was a ‘sky god’ and no earth (or mother) goddess further suggests the predominance of the ‘male’ within Indoeuropean culture.

Indoeuropean first diversified, geographically and linguistically, into eastern and western branches. This division is phonologically characterised by the separation into 's' and 'k' sounds. Hence, eastern branch languages are known as 'satem' indoeuropean languages and western branches as 'centum' indoeuropean languages. These terms are derived from the word 'hundred', as translated into Sanskrit and Latin. For example:

Fig.5

East West

‘satem’ language ‘centum’ language

satem (sanskrit) centum (latin) seto (Slavonic) cet (Irish) sto (Russian) cant (Welsh) hekaton (Greek)

This primary division occurred around the mid-2nd millennium B.C. and gave rise to the sub- families of today’s modern European languages, as well as those of central Asia and northern India. Incidentally, this was also the era when the Sankrit Riga Veda hymns were first composed and orally passed on. There are, however, some anomolies to this outline of Indoeuropean divergence. Although Basque, Hungarian, Estonian and Finnish languages are spoken in Europe, they are descendents of non-Indoeuropean languages. On the other hand, Tocharian is of Indoeuropean descent, but it exists in the province of Xingjiang, western China!

The Celtic language is thus a descendent of Indoeuropean, a language once spoken by people somewhere between Europe and India: Some say Central Asia during the 4th millennium B.C., others say Anatolia during the 7th millennium B.C. Opinions differ. Where opinions co-incide (as previously stated), is that the term ‘Indoeuropean’ refers to a language and not to a specific grouping of people. Similarly disputed is the defining of ‘the Celts’, in this era, as a particular group of people. There were people who spoke a proto-Celtic language around the early 2nd millennium, for sure, but no socially cohesive grouping of people who shared a common celtic cultural identity.

Thus, the Indoeuropean language tree picture has, until recently, been one in which Indoeuropean languages spread out from a common source origin:

Fig.6 Indoeuropean language tree

Centum Satum

proto-Indoeuropean

Indoeuropean

Western branch Eastern Branch

West European Tocharin Hellenic Anat olian Indo- Aryan/Iranian

Celtic Italic Germanic Iranian Sanskrit --- Indic

Britannic Gaelic Gaulish North East West Phoenician /Hittite Parthian , Scythian etc. Hindi, Urdu etc.

Cornish Welsh Breton Irish Scottish Manx English

The Indoeuropean dispersion

The traditionally held explanation for these language divergences is migration with the image of the nomadic warrior horsemen rushing across the plains in military expansion, as mentioned at the start of this chapter. This image, however, has been questioned, for according to archaeological evidence the horse was not used for military purposes until the middle of the 1st millenium. In fact, the earliest dated images of horses show them pulling chariots and it’s not until around 1200 B.C. that images of military horsemen appear. Hence, the Indoeuropean language expansion does not seem to have come about through horseback warriors invading foreign parts.

There are, in fact, four language migration models:

1) Colonisation – language arrives at a place previously uninhabited. 2) Elite dominance – language arrives though a small group taking power from a large group.

3) Divergence – languages diversify through geographic separation.

4) Convergence - languages merge through geographic integration

The traditionally held model (nomadic warrior horsemen) would correspond to number two – the elite dominance model. This model, however, is strongly questioned.

Another, less well supported suggestion to account for the Indoeuropean language leaving its homeland base, was the biblical flood. This story, as one internet site explains, began some 15,000 years ago when the land bridge between Spain and Africa gave way causing the Atlantic Ocean to sweep (or seep?) into the Mediterranean basin. Reaching the eastern extremes, the waters then continued to rise and spill over into the Black Sea basin. These events then led to major demographic change around the Black Sea area, for as the waters rose people were forced into the hunting grounds of others. Competition for resources thus intensified and for many it became necessary to travel further afield to survive. (migratory model 3). A slight variation on this theory concentrates on demographic changes around the Sea of Azov, an overspill of the Black Sea, which is actually very shallow and which came into being as a result of flooding around 5600 B.C. However, it should be re-emphasized that these theories are severly questoined.

An alternative theory suggests demographic change occurred as a result of the last ice age ending, whereby peoples slowly moved inland, from the Aegean and Black Sea coasts, as ice sheets receeded and new hunting grounds opened up. Group divergence then occurred with the introduction of farming, for land and personalized space would have been greatly desired and jelously guarded. Linguistic variation then indicated differentiation between groups (migratory model 3) and solidarity within (migratory model 4). And so began the Indoeuropean language expansion and diversification.

Possibly, the most generally accepted hypothesis is the one first developed in the 1920’s by Professor Gordon Childe which placed Indoeuropean origins north of the Black Sea in the Pontic steppes. Childe identified a specific material culture for this region which he named the ‘corded-ware’ culture, after a particular style of pottery, and the ‘battle-axe’ culture, indicating

the predominance of battle-axes found in this area. The region was also distinctly characterised by the burial practice of internment in communal burial mounds (tumuli or barrows). In fact, it was Childe who first proposed that this Indoeuropean culture migrated out from its Indoeuropean homeland with nomadic Indoeuropean mounted warriors intent upon military conquest. (migratory model 2)

Indoeuropean archaeology slid into the shadows following its warped disappropriation by Hitler and his ‘Aryan super race’. When it re-emerged in the 1960s, Professor Childe’s pre-war thesis was fortified by the work of Professor Marija Gimbatas who took Childe’s classification of’ ‘corded ware’ and ‘battle-axe’ cultures and united them under the classification of ‘Kurgan’ or ‘Yamna’ culture; ‘Kurgan’ being the local, Ukranian word for ‘tumali’ and ‘Yamna’ being this cultural region. However, Gimbatas placed the Indoeuropean homeland slightly further east than Childe, towards the north Caucasus and lower Volga river vally. Gimbatas also dated Kurgan settlements to have first appeared around 4,000 B.C., from where they moved west into the Balkans (specifically, the Hungarian plains alongside the Danube) around 3,500 B.C. It was then from here, according to Gimbatas, that the Kurgan culture spread out across Europe, over to northern India, through the Aegean and down into the Mediterranean, carrying with it the proto-indoeuropean language. (migratory models 1&2). This, highly credible theory, has become known as the ‘’.

Other important time markers are as follows:

Fig. 7

7000 B.C (Renfrew) - Agriculture triggers Neolithic Age 5000 B.C - More conservative estimate for beginning of Neolithic Age 4500-4000 B.C. - Early proto-Indoeuropean 4000-3500 B.C. – Kurgan (Yamna) culture. Proto-Anatolian/Hittite 3500-3000 – Middle proto-Indoeuropean. Early ‘satemization’ 3000 B.C. – Advanced pottery glazing techniques introduce Chalcolithic Age 3000-2500 B.C. - Late proto-Indoeuropean. Europe ‘kurganized’ 2500-2000 B.C. – Breakup of Indoeuropean in proto-languages, proto-Greek etc. 2000 B.C. - Bronze Age begins. The invention of the chariot 1500 B.C. - Earliest written records of Hittite 1500 B.C. - 'Hellenes' moved south from the Balkans to the Mediterranean. 1500 B.C. - proto-Celtic spreads across Europe. - proto-Italic moves into Italian peninsular - Rise and fall of Hittite empire. Rise of Vedic culture in the Punjab 1400 B.C. - Earliest Greek inscriptions ('Minoan Linear B'), found on Crete and the mainland (Mycenae). 1200 B.C. - Siege of Troy. 1000 B.C. - Homer writes ‘The Iliad’. Proto-Germanic. 1000 B.C.– 500 B.C. - late Bronze Age 500 B.C. – begins

The archaeological process of idea generation and data gathering is a slow turning machine that sifts, analyses, discusses and debates as it moves towards a general theory held by a general consensus. Part of the difficulty in arriving at such a consensus, with respect to Indouropean language expansion and divergences, is in considering Indoeuropean to be spoken by Indoeuropeans who originated from an Indoeuropean homeland and produced Indoeuropean goods. As previously mentioned, it is not really correct to talk of Indoeuropean peoples.

In discussing the diversification of the Indoeuropean language, the divergence model predominates, partly through the strength of migrationary thinking and partly as a result of the establishment of the Indoeuropean family tree. However, this picture has now been challenged; again by Professor Colin Renfrew.

Anatolian versus Kurgan

We thus return to Renfrew’s ‘techtonic’ stage, characterised by the introduction of farming and dated around 7,000 B.C. This is a date far earlier than other archaeologists had previously reckoned for the beginning of Indoeuropean culture and caused controversy when first published. However, such an early date is required in Renfrew’s case for he does not follow the migratory modal, but instead follows a ‘slow spread’ model of agricultural diffusionism which, he asserts, began in Anatolia. Hence, Renfrew’s ‘Anatolian theory’.

Professor Renfrew placed the origin of the Indoeuropean language in a different place and time than other archaeologists, partly though his rejection of the migratory model (as characterised by the image of nomadic warrior horsemen) and partly through his radiocarbon dating of cereal grains taken from Anatolian archaeological sites. However, if Professor Gimbatas’ hypothesis is correct, the horse did play an important role in the Indoeuropean expansion: Perhaps not ridden by horsemen, but for the pulling of carts and chariots.

To explain more fully: The two theories revolve around the dating of the horse’s domestication. That this event occurred during the 5th millenium B.C. support Professor Gimbatas’ Kurgan hypothesis. On the other hand, evidence that places this event in the 2nd millenium B.C. supports Professor Renfrew’s hypothesis. Deciding between the two, however, is no black-and-white affair, as analyses of horse dentition show:

Whilst molars have been found dating from the 5th millenium (e.g. Ukraine, Kazakhstan) which show signs of wear from the wearing of ‘bits’, this may not necessarily signal ‘domestication’ for it does not clearly indicate whether the horses were driven or ridden, or whether the horses were truly domesticated (i.e. bred in captivity), or simply ‘tamed’. Incontestible evidence of horse domestication only really appears from around 2,000 B.C., as first seen at the site of Sintashta in the Urals where horses were used for pulling chariots. Domesticated horses first appeared in the Near East around 1800 B.C., becoming widespread there by 1600 B.C. and across the Eastern Mediterrannean region by 1200 B.C. The pictures of

mounted horsemen engaged in warfare only become clearly displayed in the archaeological record from the start of the iron age, around 500 B.C.

This evidence points more in Professor Renfrew’s favour, although DNA testing may yet re- address the balance. The archaeological wheel of data collection and debate continues to turn on this issue and the jury is still out.

Paleolithic continuity theory & Brian Sykes

The ‘Paleolithic continuity theory’ takes another line altogether. This theory, based on recent genetic research, argues that 80% of the speakers of modern Indoeuropean languages descend from ancestors who lived in paleolithic Europe. Furthermore, the research shows that only 28% originated in Anatolia and 11 % in the Pontic Steppe.

On first sight, this theory could cause some consternation to the ‘Anatolian’ and ‘Kurgan’ theorists. However, concentrating the discussion upon the spread of Indoeuropean languages per se, the fact that they diffused west to be appropriated by the ancient inhabitants of ‘old’ Europe, shows only a path of cultural influence. Whether they spread west via the ‘Anatolian’ model or the ‘Kurgan’ model remains a point of discussion.

Genetics may eventually solve this polemic - it is certainly bringing to light other little known facts about our Euopean ancestry. For example, it is now understood that ancient Britons came from Spain!

Yes, this is the recent conclusion (2006) of Professor Brian Sykes who studies human genetics at Oxford University. In fact, Sykes has pin-pointed the spread of a particular gene commonly found in the British Isles, to a tribe of Iberian fishermen living on the Spanish Atlantic coast 6,000 years ago! It appears that they spread their chromosomes up-and-down the Atlantic coast several millennia before the Indoeuropean language arrived.

Metallurgy and Proto-Celtic origins

The Bronze Age arrived through advances in pottery glazing techniques (as previously discussed) around the commencement of the second millenium B.C. The earliest Bronze Age finds are from Unĕtice, in the Czech Republic, dated at about 2500 B.C. The proto-Celtic language, on the other hand, is said to have diverged from Indoeuropean somewhat later, at around 1500 B.C. Language divergence is not an overnight phenomena and probably the

process was set in motion through commercial activities brought about by the bronze age. The acquisition of copper and tin (the metals alloyed in the production of bronze) entailed the establishment of trading routes leading away from the Indoeuropean centre of origin, along which settlements grew. It was due to this trade that a common unified culture began to be formed across Central Europe and which involved this linguistic divergence from Indoeuropean.

However, similar to the theories concerning the spread of the Indoeuropean language, the Celtic language is also said to have commenced (as ‘Proto-Celtic’) from the east (of Europe) and migrated west through military expansionism. The understanding inherent to this notion is that metallurgical advances involved in the production of bronze provided more sturdy weaponry and, added to this the supposition that the Celts had domesticated the horse for military use by this time, they thus gained the competitive edge over their neighbours. The Celts then exploited this advantage to take control over central Europe, and beyond. This theory reckons that the Celts spread out from their homeland in successive migratory waves, with an approximate date for the original wave lying anywhere between 2,000 B.C. and 1,200 B.C. (depending on the archaeologist), during which time chariots came into fashion and assisted the onward drive. Later migrations apparently came in pulses, so that by 800 B.C. various Celtic tribes had breached the frontiers of Europe.

Opinions thus differ concerning the arrival of the Celts. Whilst the traditional picture is of successive waves of horseback Celtic warriors subduing peoples by military might and forcing them to adopt their own cultural traits, a more recent picture suggests a ‘Celticisation’ in which Celtic cultural traits were more willingly imported. The debate thus hinges on whether the Celts arrived through 'cultural imposition' or 'cultural diffusion'. These days, the latter is the favoured response, which infers that the ‘Celtic world’ was rather a conglomeration of different nations (or tribes) united by common cultural attributes. In fact, when the Graeco-Roman historians appeared on the scene, the Celts became documented as non-Mediterranean barbarians who shared a degree of cultural homogeneity.

As with the Indoeuropean language, two theories thus exist, side-by-side, to explain the spread of the Celtic language and culture: One of peace and one of war; one of migration and one of diffusion. Possibly, no singular universal model can be applied across the board and the map of Europe was one of war and peace; migration and diffusion. If so, little has changed and the 'Celticisation' of central Europe occurred rather similar to the 'Americanization' of today.

The Proto-Celtic language group is also said have become culturally distinct by the practice of cremation before internment in which the ashes were placed in urns before being removed to burial mounds. This is known as the ‘urnfield’ culture and it left its traces across Europe from the Black Sea to the Atlantic coast and Iberia. However, whilst this culture had become widespread by the 1st millenium B.C., linguistic and cultural homogeneity had not reached a level whereby Celtic culture can be said to have definitively arrived.

Links between groups indicating degrees of homogeneity are evidenced through shared language and shared material culture. In the case of Proto-Celts, evidence for this is still a bit thin on the ground, and hence the use of the prefix ‘proto-’. Sure, the Bronze Age had arrived and the urn-field practice had become relatively common, but a unified culture it was not. The defining point for the establishment of a definite ‘Celtic culture’ comes from around 1000 B.C. with the introduction of a new material culture that spread across Europe. This has come to be known as the ‘Hallstatt’ culture, so named after the town of Hallstatt, in , where archaeologists first uncovered material artefacts showing a higher degree of technical and artistic expertise than had ever been seen before. This shall be discussed in the next chapter.

Divergence of Proto-Celtic

Returning to the Indoeuropean language tree (fig.2), it can be seen that, at one time, three main Celtic language families existed: Britannic (or 'Brythonic'), Gaelic and Gaulish. One distinguishing feature that set these languages apart from other Indoeuropean languages was the loss of 'p' and long 'e'. Note, for example, plēnus (Latin) and plērēs (Greek), but lan (Irish) and llawn (Welsh). All mean 'full', as in modern French 'plein'.

Britannic (sub-divided into Cornish, Welsh and Breton) is labelled 'p-celtic', due to the Indoeuropean 'kw' evolving into a 'p' (e.g. Welsh 'penne', meaning 'head'). Gaelic (sub-divided into Irish, Scottish and Manx), on the other hand, is labelled 'c-Celtic', for here the Indoeuropean 'kw' became a 'c' (e.g. Irish 'cenne', meaning head). Breton, note, is 'p-celtic', though it’s provenance is debated by linguists. Some say that it arrived with Britons fleeing Saxon incursions in Britain (5th-6th cxentury A.D.). Others belief its provenace to stem from earlier, indigenous, pre-Roman Celts who fled north to to escape the Romans. Perhaps both hold truths and help explain dialect variations. For sure, regular contact between the two areas existed from the iron age on (Cunliffe. 2003).

Fig.8

Indoeuropean (kw)

p-celtic (Britannic) c-celtic (Gaelic) Italic

Cornish Scottish Gaulish Welsh (e.g. ‘penne’) Irish (e.g. ‘cenne’) Breton Manx

Gaulish, on the other hand, was not a Celtic language. Rather, it was a derivative of Italic quite similar to Latin. In fact, this similarity eventually spelled disaster for Gaulish because when the Romans overran Gaul, people found the Latin so easy to learn that they forgot their own. According to 'Gregory of Tours', some people in his region could still speak Gaulish in the 6th century A.D. But this was an isolated remnant; the language had all but died out by the end of the 2nd century A.D. Notice the similarities between Gaulish and Latin in these examples:

Fig. 9

Gaulish Latin are (before) ante tarvos (bull) taurus more (sea) rix (king) rex

However, few Gaulish inscriptions remain to give us a full lexicon of the language. Nevertheless, two important artefacts which have supplied us with Gaulish vocabulary are the Coligney calendar and an inscribed plate from Chalamiers. These are described in greater detail later in the text.

To complete the lingustic tree on the western European branch, English should be mentioned. This language is a distant cousin of the Celtic languages and to find any commonality we need to back-track 4,000 years. English is a derivative of German, specifically Saxon, which was the language spoken, by , in an area to the west of Germany today known as Friesland. Apparently, so I am told, this language can still be encountered by visiting Friesland today. Such a trip is a linguistic journey back in time, particularly for English visitors, to hear the language their Anglo-Saxon ancestors spoke fifteen hundred years ago.

Today’s English, of course, is a blend of Saxon and French with a smattering of Latin, a few Celtic linguistic remnants, and a handful of loan words taken from here, there and everywhere. Hence, whereas Celtic was once the most popular language in Britain, Latin and Saxon () took over during the first millennium A.D. and its usage began to disappear. This is quite a similar story to the Gaulish language which began to disappear with the arrival of the Romans. However, unlike Gaulish, the Celtic language was not similar to Latin and so it did not easily go out of use. Instead, it was kept alive by being spoken at the fringes of British society, particularly in areas where Roman supply chains didn't stretch and where later the Saxons feared to tread i.e. , Scotland, Cornwall, Wales, and the . Consequently, local Celtic language variants have survived.

4. Etymology of ‘Lug’

The word ‘lug’ is of proto-Indoeuropean (PIE) origin. In the Irish Celtic language, the word is pronounced ‘looh’ (Hutton.1997) which, perhaps, give us some indication of its pronunciation in proto-Indoeuropean. It was mentioned in the introduction to this work that the word ‘lug’ referred to a lake and the Scottish ‘loch’; the Irish ‘lough’; the Italian ‘lago’, and the Polish ‘lug’ were cited for comparison. However, other origins of the word have also been proferred:

Fig.10

PIE 'leuk' (flashing light/lightening)

PIE 'leug' (to disturb)

PIE ‘lugios’ (oath)

PIE ‘lug’ (lake)

PIE 'pleu' (to flow)

(Kondratiev, A. 1997)

The first term above connects with ‘light’; the second to ‘disturbance’; the third to ‘word’ and fourth and fifth terms could be said to correlate around a linking theme of ‘water’. Following their derivations into Proto-Celtic we have: Fig.11

PIE 'leuk' (flashing light/lightening) = proto-Celtic lugh (sun god/fierce striker)

PIE 'leug' (to upset/disturb) = proto-Celtic 'lugu-s' (upsetting power)

PIE ‘lugios’ (oath) = proto-Celtic 'lugios' (oath) = Irish-Celtic 'lugh' (lies, bond, trickery)

PIE 'pleu' (to flow) + PIE 'gheu' (to pour out) = proto-Celtic 'lu-gus' (gushing)

PIE ‘pleu’ (to flow) = IE ‘plugo’ (flowing, feathers, flying and birds)

Then, in losing the IE ‘p’, we have proto-Celtic ‘lu-gus’ = ‘floating gust’ (Kondratiev, A. 1997)

Hence: ‘Lug’ possibly had etymological associations with light, water, word, upsetting disturbance and wind/flight. Apparently, tie-ing him down to any definitive, original ‘meaning’ is a tough task. Notice too, that the Irish-Celtic form (‘Lugh’) has two contradictory meanings: The negative connotation of ‘lies’ and the positive connotation of ‘bond’. All these terms now deserve greater analysis:

1. Light

The introduction to this work mentioned a perceived connection between ‘Lug’ and ‘sun god’ by my earliest informants. Many people apparently believe the Celts to have freely subscribed to a solar worship. In fact, that’s not too surprising for most ancient religions were once thought to have been solar religions. However, today, this theory is regarded with caution for academic research has long moved on from ‘solar-myth’ obsessions. Furthermore, and with particular regard to ‘Lug’, although other sites exist in Europe that are prefixed by 'lug-' (e.g. 'luguvallem'/), many of these have no high hill from which to view the sunrise. The linguistic connection between Lug and light is thus now seriously questioned.

Recall too, my first visit to the Gallo-Roman museum, where I was informed that some experts denied the existence of Lug in Gaul. An academic polemic evidently exists on this point and I simply quote another leading expert on Celtic culture in Gaul: Jean-Jacques Hatt:

‘...Goudineau proposed that the worship of Lug was ignored in Gaul. This is manifestly wrong and results from the ignorance of the author.’

(Myths and Gods of Gaul. Vol.1. Chapter IV. P.84)

Ouch! Well, moving swiftly on and taking it that Lug did exist in Gaul, the question remains whether or not he was a solar god. It is understandable that the affirmative conclusion has occasionally been reached for the word 'lug' is similar to the Indo-European word ‘leuk’, meaning ‘brightness’ or ‘lightning’. Initially, the Romans may have made the same connection in linking 'Lug' with their own sun god 'Apollo'; before they learnt better and hybridized him with Mercury. Their original correlation could thus be described as:

leuk = brightness = Lug = Sun God =Apollo

But this is wrong and the reason why relates to the change in the phoneme 'k' in the word ‘leuk’. Through the eastern/western Indoeuropean linguistic divergence, this ‘k’ remained a 'k' in the western branch, but became a 's' or 'sh' in the eastern branch. As earlier discussed, this can seen in the words 'centum' (Latin = hundred) and 'satum' (Sanskrit = hundred). Hence, the conclusion is that:

Proto-Indoeuropean 'k' did not change into a 'g'

and therefore

'Leuk’ did not become 'Lug'.

It actually appears more likely that the Celtic god 'Leucetios' is derived from Indoeuropean 'leuk', and that 'Lug(h)' is derived from the Proto-Celtic word 'lugios'. This later term is a contraction of two words: 'leugh' (to tell lies) and 'logos' (word). 'Lugios', thus indicates both 'oath-making' and 'lying’ i.e. 'trickery'.

i.e. leuk = brightness = Leucetios

lugios = logos + leugh = word (oath) + lies = trickery = Lug(h)

(Kondratiev, A. 1997)

So, perhaps we should reject the ‘Lug equals light equals sun god’ notion, even though the Romans initially made the same association with their Lug-Apollo hybridization. In which case, perhaps we should simply ascribe to him the character of a who gave and broke his promises. Well, such is the conclusion that I did reach at one point. But then it appeared strange that the Romans would name an important city in Gaul after a Celtic God whose name simply means ‘trickery’. Anyway, surely the Romans were aware that the city had previously been named ‘Luogosduonos’ by the Greeks, in which ‘Luogos’ had some connection with crows? Something seemed to be missing and I wasn’t completely satisfied that Lug meant either light or trickery.

It then came to my notice that in Irish () mythology, Lugh was a storm god responsible for sending flashing bolts of lightening. Again, this was through reading ’s article, ‘Lugus: The Many Gifted Lord’ where, in the Irish context, Kondratiev

compares Lugh’s name with ‘Luc’h’ in and ‘Lughes’ in Cornish mythology, both of whom were also said to send lightening-flashes.

This re-opened the association of ‘Lug’ with ‘light’. But notice (Fig.12) the diversification of proto-Celtic, whereby ‘k’ became ‘ch’ or ‘gh’ in Brythonic Celtic and ‘g’ became a ‘gh’ in Gaelic. Breton Luc’h’ and Cornish ‘Lughes’ are thus derived from ‘leuk’ (light), but not Gaelic ‘Lugh’ which is derived from the prefix ‘lug’.

Fig. 12

Proto-Celtic ‘leuk’ Proto-Celtic ‘lug’

Brythonic Gaelic

Luc’h (Breton) Lugh Lughes (Cornish)

This issue remained a little grey until I learnt that in the Gaelic mythological context, Lugh battled against the summer by sending October storms, including lightening, to release summer’s hold upon the land and bring forth harvest. More shall be said about this mythology in a later chapter, suffice to say here that the lightning in these stormy battles was used as a weapon to combat the summer’s sun. It was not, therefore, in association with the sun’s light. Rather, it was in opposition.

It thus appears that the Lug/light association is weakened and the Lug/trickery association strengthened. However, just to prolong the conundrum a little further, during Jean-Jacques Hatt’s research (op.cit), he described and photographed numerous statues whose features incorporated both the Celtic gods, Teutates and Lug. These characteristics he described as:

Fig.13

Teutates Lug

The ram the crow/griffon bearded old man coiffered young warrior god of the tribe god of light and prophecy druidic early Celtic beliefs of VIth/ Vth B.C.

Evidently, such hybridized archaeological evidence shows that Lug was once considered a god of light; at least, in the early days of celticization. The Lug/light association thus continues to hover around our speculations and the head spins. Even more so when we consider the points in the box below:

Fig.14

Light & Sight

- Gk : I perceive (άϊω/ aio) = I breath in (άϊω/aio) - Hindu: speech, sight, hearing, mind = breath (prana) - Pythagoras: sight = a ray from eye to object to eye. - Homer: intelligence = inhaling ‘logos’ through ‘mind’s eye’. - Revelation = to ‘see the ‘light’. - Gk/Hindu: light = thought breathed. - Celtic: lightning = deadly glance from lightning god - Death = ‘the light (candle) going out’. - Fire in the eye in anger and envy: The ‘evil eye’.

(R.B. Onians. 1951)

Apparently, there was more to the ancients’ understandings of ‘light’ than first meets the eye- excuse the pun. But for now, these notions shall be filed away and retrieved further on in the text.

2. To upset/disturb

Turning attention next to the proto-Indoeuropean word ‘leug’, noted above to signify ‘to upset/disturb’, the following derivations were found:

Fig.15

(PIE) leug

Latin Greek proto-celtic Norse Italian/Spanish English

lugugris lygros lugus Loki lugubre lugubrious (mournful) (sad) (upsetting power) (mischevious (gloomy) (gloomy) god)

In these contexts, proto-Indoeuropean ‘leug’ (‘to upset’) came to signify ‘sadden’ in Greek, Latin and modern day Italian, Spanish and English. In Proto-Celtic, however, the word signifies a power (force, entity) that upsets (disturbs, changes) an existing status quo. A revolutionary connotation thus seems apparent, the rebellious nature of which is perhaps exemplified and personified in the Norse god ‘Loki’ who was known for being a mischevious trickster. Thus the notion of trickery (lugios) still appears not too far distant.

3. Flowing water/flight

Analysis of the proto-celtic ‘lugus’, as derived from PIE ‘pleu’ (to flow) and ‘gheu’ (to pour out), really opens up a neurological pandora’s box: Cognitive archaeological research into neolithic art has now begun to understand how mental constructions of the universe reflect the ‘hard-wiring’ of the brain (see ch.2) and in this regard ‘lugus’ may tell us much about the genesis of Indoeuropean mythological and cosmological constructions. This all needs further elaboration.

As seen above (Fig.11), two possible meanings can be derived from this word. One deals with flowing (‘gushing’) water and the other with flight, birds and feathers, and both of these concepts are universally employed to characterize cosmological transition zones.

Perhaps the most well-known example of the transition zone of water is the River Styx, in Greek mythology, over which the dead must pass on their way to the afterlife. Alternatively, the oldest known example must be the ‘waters of death’, in ‘The tale of ’, in Babylonian mythology. Both examples, like the sacred river in Samuel Coleridge’s opium induced dream ‘Xanadu’, appear in caves, down long dark tunnels. Or in Coleridge’s words: ‘Through caverns measureless to man, down to a sunless sea’. But many, many other examples exist in which water is presented as a barrier between the zones of life and death. It is for this reason, some archaeologists argue, that neolithic tombs (i.e. above ground caves) were often encirled by ditches.

Evidently, water is associated with life. Simply imaging dried out corpses may explain why! In fact, this water/life-force association appears to be quite universal. See below:

Fig. 16

Water

1) Water’s importance as a life-giving fluid was recognized early on in pre-history e.g. the fertilising power of the Nile was acknowledged by Egyptians as a source of (re)generation.

2) Early Greek philosophers (e.g. Thales) saw water as a primal, cosmic substance encircling the earth like a . Upon this form, the earth rested, egg-like. Possibly these ideas were taken from Mesopotamia.

3) Orphics believed the world ‘egg’ to have been created by a ‘cosmic wind’ in which an exhalation of water vapour (cosmic breath) led to the origin of universe.

4) Waters are considered sacred to numerous religions, whether during purification rituals or to imbibe procreative life-fluid e.g. Hindu bridegrooms are known to wash in sacred rivers before wedding ceremonies. Also water is used in baptisms and christenings, symbolizing ‘new life’, as well as various other anointing ceremonies. (R.B. Onians. 1951)

Similarly, moving onto the second meaning, flight represents passage between the terrestrial and the celestial spheres. Shamans the world over, during trances, interact with the spirit world through altered states of consciousness in which ‘magical flight’ plays a principle role (D. Lewis-Williams and D. Pierce. op.cit). Mythologically too, birds are often accorded sacred significance for their ability to tranverse the zones between the earth and the skies. And Hermes, the Greek god pictured with wings on his helmet, was a recognized messenger of the gods who gave Perseus a pair of winged sandals to fly off on his celestial exploits (see ch.12).

Recall now, that amongst the symbolic representations attributed to Lug were the crow, the cock and the griffon. The crow in particular plays a prominent in Lugdunam’s founding mythology. In fact, this was more as an autumnal scavanger transversing the boundary between summer and winter, life and death, the land and the underworld. The cock, on the other hand, the bird who declares an end to night in heralding the dawn, came to be associated with both the Roman gods Mercury and Apollo, whom the Romans hybridized with Lug. That this ‘night/day’ transition, passaged by the arrival of morning sunlight, is still sometimes associated with Lug, has continued to keep alive the Lug/light association (see also fig. 22).

Birds were also important in ancient Greek mythological conceptions for, like words, they flew on the wind. And in mythical terms the wind was conceived of as cosmic breath (cf. ‘The Holy Spirit’). A strong conceptual link thus existed between word, wind and flight:

Fig. 17 Word, Wind & Flight

- Thoughts are words and words are breath. - Holy spirit conceived of as a wind, the breath of God. - ‘Pneuma’(Gk) breath/soul of cosmos. ‘Prana’’ (Hindu) cosmic breath. - Mind/intelligence issues from the lungs. - To ‘get it off your chest’ links lungs with emotions. - Breath associated with consciousness, emotion, ‘spirit’, inspiration. - Bird’s lungs are often named as its ‘soul’. - Thoughts fly on breath, as winged creatures, between speaker and listener. - Plato perceived mind as a cage full of birds. - Birds occupy mid- position between earth and heavens. Zone of rising burnt offerings. Hold god to ransom (Aristophanes play: Birds)

(R.B.Onaians. 1951)

Slowly, it begins to appear that not only are these concepts (light, water, wind/flight, word and upsetting disturbance) inter-linked, but that they are associated with cosmic powers. In particular, the terms unify the human ‘spirit’ (‘life-force’, ‘psyche’) with supernatural forces. For the ancients, this was to deal with questions of ‘soul’ and ‘consciousness’. These were questions that arose as humankind became aware of its own existence. By ‘ancients’, I am suggesting as far back as proto-Indoeuropeans. Perhaps they are ‘universals’?

Mythologically, these concepts were placed within a three-tiered universe of ‘the ‘celestial heavens’, ‘the land’ and ‘the underworld’. This picture, some cognitive archaeologists argue, is a ‘mental construct’, accessed through altered states of consciousness. Indeed, modern-day researchers have detailed visions encountered in altered states (arrived at through hallucinogenic drugs, meditation, near-death experiences, sensory deprivation, exposure to prolonged rhythmical beat, hynogogia or various pathological conditions such as schizophrenia), and noted their similarities with visions encountered during shamanistic experiences. Namely: Bright geometric motifs; tunnels, caves and vortexes; flying, and iconic images such as animals or animal/human hybrids (D. Lewis-Williams and D. Pearce. op cit.).

We thus have some idea, albeit rather vague, of the ways in which human existence was once considered. In fact, many of these concepts exist today in modern Indoeuropean religions whose philosophic roots lie deep in the past e.g. and Hinduism. Their outward manifestations may be different due to culturally acquired sophistications, but they once tackled similar existential questions with similar conceptual tools. Likewise, as we shall see, the Celts inherited their basic toolkit from Indoeuropean ancestors, developed it, and used it to rationalize existence in their own particular way.

So, returning to ‘pleu’. Whether referring to flowing water or flight, the term may simply have represented the transition between cosmological zones; a universal concept neurologically ‘hard-wired’ into the human brain. Of course, as previously remarked, this ‘mentalist’ hypothesis bears many similarities to the ‘structuralism’ of Levis-Strauss which was criticized for ignoring socio-cultural elements. D.Lewis-Williams and D. Pearce acknowledge this criticism by placing the mental ‘hard-wired’ constructs within different cultural contexts. Western and Middle Eastern neolithic mytho-cosmological conceptions were thus similar in base, but different in superstructural details.

In the same way, the role of religious experience, belief and practice differ in emphasis according to cultural contexts. For example, oriental religions value more the experiential element of religion whereas western religions accord more importance to belief and practice. This comes as no surprise considering the role rationality has come to play in the west since its Greek inception. It should come as no surprise neither to learn that Indoeuropean speaking peoples highly valued religious experience in which shamans played a leading role; as they do in many other pre-literate societies. The etymology of ‘lug’ thus gives five possible meanings:

Fig.18

word water wind/flight change light

oath life/death upper world upset, disturb illumination transition transition

In fact, this is as far as etymological research can take us. But rather than plumping for any of the above definitions to define ‘Lug’, perhaps we should simply note the great significations of these words which lie at the heart of many, if not all, religious belief systems. This fact has been alluded to in the previous few explanatory paragraphs. To re-iterate this fact in black- and-white we have:

Fig.19

Word - the original, animating power of the universe (e.g.In the beginning was the word...’)

Water - the boundary to the domain of death and the underworld.

Flight - transversing between the temporal world and the domain of the eternal spirits.

Change - the dynamic of the universe.

Light - revelation of the ‘true’ nature of the universe.

Hence, either it is coincidental that ‘Lug’ is etymologically associated with all these concepts, or these concepts were semantically linked through various proto-Indoeuropean forms of the word lug. This second notion applies greater signification to the word ‘lug’ than has previously been granted.

Two notions of Lug have thus now been supplied:

Fig.20

1. 2.

WORD Cultural hero

FLIGHT WATER

LUG LUG

CHANGE LIGHT

(Fantalov’s reduction)

These two notions have been arrived at through etymological research (1) and through applying a ‘Fantalovian’ reduction (2). Admittedly, supposition has played a large part in their

creation and they have yet to be put to the cultural context test. That will come in the following chapters whereby Lug will be examined through the development of the Celtic civilisation. At this point, however, it also seems appropriate to put a slight damper on proceedings and not raise expectations too high that Lug played a highly significant role for the Gauls in France.

Nevertheless, the fact can’t be ignored that many French and Spanish towns have been named after Lug and that he does play a central role in , as shall be seen. In fact, of all the Celtic gods, Lug was the most ‘Pan-European’. Many of the other gods were strictly limited to particular tribes. On the other hand, many of the concepts outlined above can be seen reflected upon within the mythologies of other Indoeuropean languages. To what extent such values were principle values in ancient Celtic collective representions, and to what extent they were significant in any lost mythology of Gallic Lug may be very difficult to determine. But that is the charter for this work.

Criticism and counter-criticism.:

Critics will surely point out that in attributing such central significance to ‘Lug’ I am forcing an issue by applying my own personal conceptions in the desire to solve this ‘lug conundrum’; not the conceptions of the speakers of proto-Indoeuropean. The tenuous link of ‘light’ may be exampled to show this and perhaps linguists would also accord an equally tenuous link between ‘lug’ and word, water, flight and change. In fact, as may be argued, there is really little hard evidence (epigraphical or mythological) to support the above hypothesis. I here call to mind the lack of Lug artefacts in the Gallo-Roman museum in Lyon. Surely, this implies a minimal signification of Lug?

Acknowledgement of these criticisms is noted and I am aware of the speculative nature of my discussion. Yet, there is no doubt that the concepts are intrinsic to many religio- mythological traditions in which light (as in ‘enlightenment’ or ‘revelation’) also plays an intrinsic role. Hence, the possible etymological roots of ‘lug’ can not be simply avoided.

Take the Proto-Celtic derivation of ‘lugus’ as an example, whereby the word came to signify both ‘oath’ and it’s contraire – ‘lies’, or ‘trickery’. Metaphysical dualisms came into existence early on in the history of Indoeuropean languages, and to the animating power of the universe was attributed its antithesis. In Christian theology, a late arrival on the religions stage, such a

dualism existed between God and Satan. In earlier Indoeuropean religions this dualism could be seen in the Mazdaianism, Manichaenism and Zoroastorianism of ancient Persia as well as in Slavonic mythology (e.g. Byelobog and Chernobog-the White and Black Gods). Whilst Hegelian dialectics argue that the dynamic for social change occurs through the synthesis of thesis and anti-thesis, it appears that Indoeuropean speakers too had been ‘enlightened’ to this principle. But then, Hegel had been greatly influenced by the Orient.

Perhaps the final word, however, should be left to Professor Ronald Hutton when he stated:

‘By examining the primitive Indoeuropean words for sacred things, it was long believed possible to reconstruct the concepts that lay behind these things. The problem was that as a theoretical game it was too easy for a good linguist to play: by the mid-twentieth century a number of different schemes had been produced, all logically convincing, all mutually incompatible and all impossible to prove.’ (italics added. Hutton. 1991. p.102)

5 . The science of ‘meaning’

Rather than simply ‘playing the linguistic game’, as Hutton (Ibid) put it, a contextual appreciation of ‘Lug’ may offer more substance. However, whilst this may be an ideal for practising anthropologists who spend large amounts of time with their subjects in order to understand ‘how they think’, when the subjects are confined to prehistory this project is, arguably, a non-starter.

Of course, one may retort that Greco-Roman writers had first hand experience in dealing with the Celts and that their written record gives us valuable insights into Celtic ‘ways of being’. Alternatively, there is the material cultural that was left behind from whose symbolic interpretation Celtic ‘modes of thought’ can be extracted. And, furthermore, one could also argue that Celtic culture is alive today, lived by various peoples in various regions and so we only need to be amoungst them to know how ancient Celts thought and felt.

Perhaps these arguments do hold certain truths. For sure, in following Barry Cuneliffe (2006. op cit), I also would not advocate dismissing them completely. But consider also that the Greco-Roman writers were not Celts and that they wrote with their own political writing agendas in mind. Consider too that though the material culture may be rich in decipherable symbolism, who is doing the deciphering? With no disrespect to archaeologists intended, they are not the prehistoric Celts who would be able to explain its lived significance. And as for today’s Celtic cultures? Well, most of these result from re-inventions of ancient traditions which occurred during the seventeenth century’s rise of nationalisms and involved the creations of cultural identities (see Hobsbawn. 1983). Thus these may have only minimal value in elucidating the Celtic customs of antiquity

A cartoon I once saw showed an anthropologist walking into a village. He was spotted by the villagers before he arrived who then hurriedly hid the televisions and music systems; took down the satellite dishes, and pushed the skateboards out the back. Finally, as they changed out of their jeans and into their loin-cloths, they sat Grandma outside on a step telling her to tell the anthropologist that one of her ancestors was a descendant of the great crocodile god.

One claim that anthropology makes is that it is the science of discovering ‘meaning’: In particular, discovering what ‘meaning’ consists of for those whose culture is different from our own. This is really a two-edged sword, for we really need to know what ‘meaning’ consists of for ‘us’, before we can question what it means for ‘others’. And strangely enough, it’s partly by asking what ‘meaning’ means for ‘others’ that we begin to learn what it means for ‘us’.

The science of determining ‘meaning’ is named ‘hermeneutics’. This is a discipline that has evolved over the centuries from interpreting written, religious texts (philology/exegesis) to understanding ‘meaning’ from the subjective perspectives of participants acting in particular cultural contexts. The word ‘hermeneutics’ is Greek in origin and stems from the god ‘Hermes’ who interpreted messages of the gods for ‘the people’. However, Hermes was also a trickster who sometimes fooled people into making false interpretations. And, just as a reminder, the Hermes-Mercury-Lug connection has, I believe, recently been discussed.

‘Meaning’ is a profound concept and many thinkers, from philosophers to artists, have spent their lives trying to ‘fathom it out’. I do not intend to try and follow their examples. However, I shall briefly comment on the relationship between ‘meaning’ and ‘culture’, for this is an area that concerns Lug.

Discussed earlier (ch.2) was the joint workings of mind and body in the creation of culture. In fact, this was more like a symbiotic in which cultural resources aided the development of mind by being used. Stone tools in particular were looked at, specifically their developing finess as humankind stepped out of its australopithecine origins and spent over a million homo erectus years learning new stone tool-making skills. But there’s no reason to stop with stone tools, for as Professor Clifford Geertz once stated (1973):

‘Tools, hunting, family organization, and, later, art, religion, and “science” molded man somatically…

And then, to finish his sentence, he went one step further:

… and they are, therefore, necessary not merely to his survival but to his existential existence’.

In other words, due to mind’s developed capacities, induced through cultural interaction, a dependency was acquired concerning humankind’s existential self. Continuing along the evolutionary path from bipedalism to tool-making, communication and social co-operation followed suit. In consequence, humankind became ‘hooked’ on culture and needed to be immersed within it to avoid existential angst. And anyone having experienced ‘culture shock’ may appreciate such ‘angst’ acquired through not fully understanding ‘other’ cultural codes. Culture thus gave psychological security by providing meaning and understanding to life.

Cultural immersion acquisition of meaning psychological security

Similarly expressed are the phenomenological views of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann (1969) who argued that the attribution of meaning to the uncertainty of life is a socially, institutionally, legitimizing affair; otherwise known as religion. Life’s meaning is thus socially acquired and legitimized through religious institutions.

For sure, this ‘acquisition of meaning’ has political overtones for individuals are immersed in cultures with other individuals, and from this ‘soup’ conceptions are contested on the way to becoming commonly held: Such is the dynamic underlying social forces and social change. Still, to pin-point ‘communal meaning’ is a multi-facetted polemic.

Both sociological and anthropological theories generally fall somewhere between observing either individually created or socially imposed meanings; often sneakily avoiding tackling the ‘truths’ of such meanings. This is the self and society dichotomy in which individuals may politicize or proselytize their own personal viewpoints to get their messages across through politics, religion, art or drama (Firth. 1996). In other words, the spectacle of some opiated, eye-rolling shaman, or tongues-talking baptist, is as much about audience manipulation as about actually contacting spirit entities. On the other hand, ‘meaning’ is an on-going, highly personal engagement with ‘social reality’, in which individuals make incremental adjustments in their social perceptions and relations thoughout their lives (Firth. Ibid). This is the ‘self’ side of the ‘self/society dichotomy’.

Philosophical and theological deliberations upon ‘meaning’ are multitudinous and the line between the two fields is really rather grey. However, at opposite poles, they differ in respect of the inclusion or exclusion of divinity within their conjectural musings. Hence ‘meaning’, for

the theologians, is associated with ‘knowledge’ of the ‘Absolute’ gained through mystical insight or revelation. ‘Meaning’ for the rationalist-based philosophers, on the other hand, is associated with objectively perceived and analysed data.

It is, of course, without giving credit to the full range of thought that the above dualisms are so fleetingly outlined. Yet, these thoughts all relate to ‘meaning’ being approached from different directions. Apparently, then, ‘meaning’ has been given much consideration throughout history (including prehistory) and such considerations arose through humankind’s interaction with his environment (social and physical) and his ‘existential need’ to put order to it and classify himself within it.

Rather than defining humankind’s distinctive nature as being solely that of an objective philosopher seeking underlying rationales; or of an existentialist satisfying emotional needs; or even that of a religious practioner interacting with the ‘luminal zone’, it may be more valid to take a more ‘holistic’ approach and consider that all approaches, to varying extents, in differing cultural contexts, may be operative. Individuals do act and think individually whilst following the prescribed customs of their communities.

Determining exactly how the Celts conceptualised ‘meaning’ may be impossible, assuming that a standard, socially accepted definition of ‘meaning’ could be applied to a homogeneous Celtic culture; which is a big assumption. However, material artefacts and mythical tales left behind by the Celts to indicate their cultural inclinations do suggest that ‘meaning’ was an issue which concerned them. In fact, if we’re to follow Geertz, it would have been of central importance to their existential existence.

Getting back to Lug then (finally), he does appear to have played a role in the creation of meaning for some ancient Celts. That is, he must have had a ‘reason for being’. Whether his role was as a cultural founding father; a minor, local deity, or a hero figure, remains to be discussed. My suggestion here is simply that he was actively involved in the creation of ‘meaning’ for the Celtic peoples by helping them make sense of their cultural origins.

*********************************************

Part 2

6. The Celts

Cautionary notes:

The first cautionary note regards sources: Unfortunately, the Celts of antiquity left no literary records to clarify their belief systems and more than two thousand years have passed since Graeco-Roman historians first recorded Celtic practices. These, as previously noted, perhaps shouldn't be taken too literally for their writings may well have been influenced by political motives or based on ignorance and misinterpretation. Furthermore, medieval monks often contorted these earlier Graeco-Roman reports by adding snippets from Greco-Roman mythologies to which more contemporaneous writers further manipulated these writings in the beliefs that they were presenting ‘a window on the Iron Age'. How ‘the truth' gets handled!

. Secondly, inscriptions and motifs found on shrines, ritual objects, figurines, metalwork, pottery, coins and stones are often ambiguous and confound clear interpretation. Whether they are decorative, representative or religious in character is an on-going area for archaeological debate.

Thirdly, caution should be taken with regard to generalisations: were highly localised. Whilst frequently portrayed as a homogeneous culture, heterogeneity was also an aspect of Celtic identity. For example, whereas written inscriptions from Gaul name nearly 400 gods, most are named just once. Even the major gods received only a few recorded notations.

Fourthly, attempts to reveal 'ancient' Celtic or Druidic customs have frequently been found lacking since such attempts have often been linked to the creation of national identities. For example, in Britain, the 19th century revival of Welsh Nationalism included the setting up of the yearly Eisteddford festivals. These were established on the premise that there was an ancient 'Bardo-druidic' faith, as documented in ancient 'Barddas' manuscripts. All, however, was a complete fabrication created by one Edward Williams. Similarly, several 19th French writers sought to promote a positive French national image by matching cultivated, intellectual Gallic Celts against brutish, unimaginative Teutonic Germans. This was, simply put, a nation building one-upmanship.

Later attempts to promote Celtic identity have been more materialistic with profit-margins the guiding factor: The 1960's anti-establishment movements incorporated ‘alternative Celtic spirituality' in the drive to distance themselves from parent cultures and several creative writers took up the pen to respond to the demand. In Britain, this trend got a boost in the 1990's as the 'New Age' culture set in. Subsequently, a dramatic increase in interest in 'neo-paganism', 'earth mysteries' and ‘spiritual quests', guided by so called 'Celtic religious practices', became fashionable. Celtic books, music CDs, Celtic crosses and knot-work bracelets rolled off the production lines.

Setting such scepticisms aside, all is not lost. Six centuries of Greco-Roman historians writing on ‘The Celts’ produced enough specific points in common to take them seriously. Furthermore, Indoeuropean research tells us plenty about Celtic origins, as does research into Indoeuropean mythologies which all stemmed from the same roots. And yes, contemporary Celtic ‘survivalists’ make valid points concerning insular material from which we learn much.

It is with these points in mind that we proceed.

Background

Bands of nomadic horsemen brandishing swords and blazing trails across Europe is a picture commonly applied to: ‘The Coming of the Celts’. Perhaps this image of barbarian invaders is etched upon the European sub-conscious for there is some truth in it. Both Greek and Roman historians wrote of it in their times, with particular regard to the Celts, and the Moors, Mongols and Vikings did later ravage their way into Europe burning, raping and pillaging as they arrived. Perhaps too, out of some in-born fear of this image, the modern times construct of a ‘fortress Europe’ exists to protect Europeans against the imagined hoards of ‘outsiders’ fighting to cross the European frontier and enter within.

However, when this image is applied to the Celts, it is highly questionable, despite the fact that Celts (or ‘Celtic-’) did appear from beyond the borders of today’s Europe around the beginning of the second millenium B.C.

One of the problems with this image is the time period. From humble origins, as Central European settlers with distinguishing burial practices; to its imperial height as a vast European power, to its final, dramatic end against the might of the Roman empire, we’re talking two thousand years. For sure, conflicts were had as they carved out their niches and grew to

prominence, and for sure they fought hard to stay on top. But the picture recorded for posterity by Greco-Roman historians, in documenting their own rises to prominence, perhaps unfairly concentrates too much on this ‘barbarian’ picture. The reason they did so, of course, was to document their defeat of the wild ‘other’ and justify their own ‘civilised’ existence (Cunliffe. 2006). Hardly an unbiased view! But the image of war-mongering Celtic invaders is still popular and marketable, particularly to film-makers and novelists, and so endures to varying degrees.

From proto-Celtic to Celtic

Firstly, then, it is important to see the arrival of the Celts as part of a larger picture in which specific conglomerates of peoples were formed out of the large admixture of Indoeuropean speaking peoples across Eurasia. This was a step towards small, homogeneous identities which consisted of units larger than the family and immediate kin. For the Indoeuropean speaking peoples, such ‘clumping’ of peoples became the (Central Asia); Hittites (Anatolia); Slavs, and Germans (Northern Europe); Thracians and (Eastern Europe); Italics (Alpine region); Indo-Aryans (Iran/India) and Celts (Western Europe). (See below).

Map. 5

(created by author)

Secondly, by the end of the 2nd millenium B.C., metallurgical procedures that had arisen through advanced pottery techniques in Anatolia and the Balkans had become common practice across Europe. The Central European area was found to be particularly rich in copper ore deposits and this attracted metal worker. Thus arose the growth of the chalcolithic and bronze industries in that region involving trans-european trade links.

Urnfield Culture

A ‘Proto-Celtic culture’ thus spread across Europe due to the commercial trade in copper and bronze. This was a new ‘proto-culture’ which showed a degree of homogeneity and stretched north of the Alps from Central Europe to the Atlantic. Partly this homogeneity was due to the common practice of ‘urnfield’ burial customs and partly it was due to the existence of a Proto- Celtic language. One suspects too that such homogeneity arose due to Greco-Roman writers’ collectively labelling all those north of the Alps as ‘barbarians’; or in Greek terminology, ‘Keltoi’ (Celts). Whichever reason best fits, with time this ‘cultural group’ became increasingly defined with reference to its neighbours. To the north were the ‘Proto-Germans’ and ‘proto-Balts’. To the east were the ‘Proto-Slavs’ and ‘Proto-Illyrians’. To the south were the ‘Proto-Italics’. These were new cultures that formed as Indoeuropean speaking peoples diversified and diverged.

(taken from: The Times Atlas of World History. Without permission)

Small and independent societies flourished at this time in which isolated farms, small villages, forts and citadels dotted the Central European landscape. And as the new metallurgical industry brought in wealth, societies grew and became increasingly hierarchical with powerful chiefs and rich aristocrats benefitting most from increased agricultural production.

As societies developed, smaller settlements merged to become larger conglomerates. The rich became richer and the powerful, more powerful, and ultimately this had an effect on burial practices: When civic leaders died their bodies were carried to their final resting places on funeral chariots pulled by horses. They were then entombed with symbols of their wealth, such

as jewellery, or perhaps their favourite sword. Then the tomb was sealed and a tombstone (or engraved pillar) ceremonially placed on top. From this time, beginning with the ‘nouveau- riche’, urnfield cremation practices began to go out of fashion.

Hallstatt Culture

The ‘Hallstatt culture’ is generally recognized as the marker post for the origin of Celtic culture in Europe. Four phases(A-D) of this culture have been distinguished, of which ‘Hallstatt A and B’ correspond to the Bronze age (1200 B.C. – 800 B.C.) and ‘Hallstatt C and D’ (800 B.C.– 450 B.C.) correspond to the Iron Age.

The Hallstatt culture revolved around salt (‘salz’-German, ‘hall’-Proto-Celtic). This substance was white gold to the proto-celts who had moved inland as commercial links opened up across Central Europe with the trade in copper and bronze. For them, living away from coastal regions, salt became a vital commodity and when it was discovered in large resources in Austria a prehistoric industry developed for its extraction. This salt exploitation resulted in such a social and economic revolution across Europe, through consolidating previous trading links and thereby encouraging cultural homogeneity, that it effectively and single-handedly, established a continental Celtic super-nation.

The salt veins were extensive, being of several kilometers in length. However, the miners were skilled workers who had had previous experience in this type of work due to their involvement with copper mining. They thereby employed similar techniques and materials, and these have been exceptionally well conserved by the salt. The materials consisted of picks, fire-lit torches, backpacks to carry the salt rocks and food baskets. Even clothes and shoes have remained well enough preserved to inform us about their use of textiles.

The Hallstatt culture is so named after the town of Hallstatt, Austria, where extensive mining was carried out from the Bronze to the Iron age. The fact that it also became an important economic centre is evidenced by the number of tombs that have been uncovered. The first archaeological digs in Hallstatt began in 1824. However, it was under the guidance of ‘George Ramsauer’, in 1846, that the most extensive work was undertaken. In total, Ramsaure excavated 980 tombs and from these he catalogued 19,497 objects. That gives an average of 20 objects per tomb. These objects included many long-bladed iron swords; copying and replacing the earlier bronze swords. To date, around 2,000 tombs have now been excavated. This large

number thus indicates that burials had become more common than cremations. The practices of the urnfield culture had come to an end.

A second important feature, acknowledged through the excavations of the Hallstatt tombs, was that the Celts, already masters of bronze production, quickly caught on to iron. In fact, ‘The Iron Age’ has frequently been attributed to the Celts. The improved weaponry; the new coinage; the latest household goods, and the jewellery that became commonplace in this era, supports this notion.

La Téne culture

With the coming of the Iron Age, the Hallstatt period slipped effortlessly into the ‘La Téne’ cultural period, dated between 500 B.C–100 B.C. This period is further sub-divided into three shorter intervals: Early (6th century B.C.), middle (450-100 B.C.) and late (100 B.C.-1st century A.D.) .

The period is named after the site of 'La Téne', situated on the north bank of Lake Neuchatel, in Switzerland, 500 kms southwest of Hallstatt. The site was first excavated by Hansli Kopp in 1857. Since this time, further archaeological digs have concentrated on the edge of the lake itself from where a large quantity of objects (2,500) has been recovered from the peat. Predominantly this is weaponry: Swords (166), spears (270), shields (22), and brooches (400). It appears that the objects were thrown into the lake from a wooden jetty as votive offerings.

It is understood (see p.45) that in mythological terms water delimited the underworld from the temporal world. Hence, in all probability, these offerings were to made to underworld chthonic gods. In addition, the excessive quantity indicates a ‘potlatch’ style activity. This is a term derived from the extravagant, wanton destruction of goods carried out by the Kwakiutl Indians of North-Western Canada in order to gain prestige (Boas. 1865). In parallel to that community, La Téne society was similarly hierarchical and warrior based, with powerful chiefs controlling increasingly numerous populations. Lake Neuchatel was thus ‘a sacred lake’, as were most lakes and waterways within Celtic religious beliefs, and held therapeutic properties. Again, we are reminded of the linguistic associations of ‘Lug’ with water and lakes.

The La Téne area of influence stretched from the Atlantic coast to the Carpathian Mountains, similar to that of the Hallstatt period which it replaced. However, the La Téne culture showed

a higher level of workmanship than before, particularly in the production of pottery, jewellery, glassware, coins or metal. La Téne art employed intricate spiral designs, interlaced knotwork patterns and curvilinear shapes which, in contrast to the more geometric designs of the Hallstatt period, showed influences from Etruscan and Scythian art. Evidently, Celtic culture was not a closed system and there is even some suggestion that Greek builders were involved in the construction of various Celtic buildings, such as ‘oppida’, which were then moving from being stone to wooden structures.

The La Téne period is specifically characterised by its aristocratic and military leadership, a trend which began in the Hallstatt period. Much of the fine jewellery, particulary neck-pieces and bracelets, were produced for these elite to exhibit at military parades as symbols of prestige. Burial practices also became increasingly elaborate whereby the deceased was carried to his tomb on a horse driven chariot and then interred with the chariot plus his military hardware, favourite jewellery and, on occassions, his sacrificed wife.

It thus appears that as the Celtic sphere of influence grew, cultural attributes from farther afield were absorbed. From Asia Minor was drawn the practice of decorating objects with geometric patterns representing the sun and the wheel. One particular god frequently shows up on objects from this period and is often associated with images of birds, horses, dogs, twin serpents and mistletoe. The god is unnamed, but could he be 'Lug'? The evidence does point in his favour. Such evidence takes into account the prevalence of 'Lug' prefixed place-names spread out over the Celtic domain and the prevalence of later mythological figures linguistically related to 'Lug'. We can thus surmise that 'Lug' was a well-known and widespread Iron Age/Celtic god.

Celtic expansion and migrations

From the ‘Hallstatt’ to the 'La Téne' period, Celticism came to dominate European culture. This was the the age of Celtic migrations: A golden, imperial age in which they launched and won three major wars. In 500 B.C they took Spain from the Carthaginians. In 400 B.C they took Northern and then moved south, down the Po valley, and plundered (340 B.C). They also moved east into Greece, before entering Asia Minor. In addition, around 300 B.C, they took Pannonia (Albania) from the Illyrians. Expansionist aspirations, despite having possibly starting as passive cultural diffusionism, had now, it seems, become military conquests.

In detail, many Celts, on their westward migrations from the Black Sea area, had earlier passed either into Germany and Scandinavia, or directly into the Alpine region. However, by the second half of the 5th century B.C. they became attracted to warmer climes and a mass exodus of warriors, women and children rode south towards the Mediterranean. This was a military-led exodus wherein the Celts invaded and fought indigenous populations for survival. Their sheer mass of numbers, their cries of war from outside city gates; the noise and dust produced by their chariots; their hammering of shields with swords, the naked warriors, and their snarling dogs, struck fear in the hearts of those awaiting inside. This acquired the Celts their fierce, 'barbarian', reputation.

Those that entered Italy soon came into conflict with the growing Roman Empire. Unperturbed, the Celts swept south, ravaging and burning. Eventually, 20 kms from Rome at the River Allia, they met a force of 40,000 Roman soldiers commanded by 'Senon Brenus'. The Romans were strong, but the Celtic hoard was too numerous to stop. After massacring many the Celts then continued on to the capital where resistance was greater. Here, they lay siege to the city for several weeks, during which time the retired Roman general 'Camille' organized and brought in resistance from the countryside which finally persuaded the Celts to retire. The Celts continued to harass the the Romans for a long time after and the Romans could never completely obliterate from their collective memories this dark stain on their history when their Capitol was almost taken. Conflict between Celts and Romans lasted many centuries.

The Celts that entered Greece became involved in a plot to form a Gallo-Greek alliance against the Romans. This was led by 'Genthios', the son of 'Eurydice' (a Greek) and 'Pleurotes' (an Illyrian king of Celtic origin). Genthios was a local despot who haggled with the Macedonian leader, 'Perseus' (son of Philip V'), to supply the Greeks with Celtic military support. But Genthios played a bad hand in fluctuating allegiance between the Roman and Greeks with the result that he lost his kingdom and the Romans gained control of the area. From this time on, being equally defeated, Macedonian Greeks and Illyrian Celts merged. It was from the Greeks that the Celts got their name: ‘Keltoi’, meaning 'barbarian'. The Latin term ‘Galli’, also translates as barbarian and became the term to describe the Celts in France (Gaul). Perhaps it was from their fierce, fearless courage in battle; their reputed great stature, or the fact that both men and women, side-by-side, would charge naked into battle with fierce, terror- inspiring war cries, that they acquired this ‘barbarian’ image.

Three main groups of Celts settled in Turkey: ‘The Tolisto-Boïens’ (Turkish-Adriatic coast), ‘The Troemiens’ (Bosphorus), and ‘The Tectosages’ (Turkish interior). This really annoyed the Romans when they arrived (190 B.C.) for they seemed to come up against these pesky Celts wherever they invaded. It didn't help matters either that the Celts mocked them about their River Allia defeat. Hence, under the leadership of ‘Manlius Vulso', the Romans slaughtered them, by the tens of thousands, and then marched fifty-two of their chiefs to a triumphant return in Rome; before strangling them. No wonder that Manlius reported to the Senate that the Gauls in Turkey had become 'sweet and submissive'. These were the Celts ('') who later received St. Paul's New Testament letter rebuking them for turning to 'false prophets' after he had given them the Christian message. We can only surmise whether St. Paul knew their whole story.

There were also the Celts who merged with various Germanic tribes, some of which either settled in Belgium (‘The Belgae') or crossed the channel to Britain. Other Belgae (‘The 'Ambiens') crossed, in waves (4th-3rd century B.C.), into Gaul where they found a depopulated area between the and the . However, this area was strategically important as a trade link between (the domain of the 'Amoricains') and the North Sea, and consequently became disputed territory.

Serious conflict between ‘The Ambiens’ and ‘The Amoricains’ occurred at the 'Ancre valley', near Ribemont (260 B.C.), where at least five thousand combattants faced each other across two, one-kilometre-long, lines. The higher ranked warriors wore golden breast plates, the majority fought naked. Horses too were involved. Finally, the Ambiens were victorious and their site for settlement secured. This 'Ribemont' battle site is one of the few to provide extensive archaeological material. Its specific importance is in detailing the treatment of the dead (see p.23).

Many other Celts headed south-west through Switzerland and northern Italian valleys, such as ‘Valcamonica’. This valley is a natural funnel that leads down, through the Alps, to the Mediterranean. Today, it is known as 'Graffiti valley' due to the thousands of ancient rock carvings scattered upon its boulders and rock-faces. Many of these carvings are of warriors and hunters, horses and chariots, graphically representing prehistoric life. On reaching the Mediterranean coast these Celts settled down in an area (south-east France/ north-west Italy) called ; a name retained today (Capital town: Genoa). In Roman times this area between the Alps and the Mediterranean became known as the 'Cisalpine' region. It was part of

the Roman Empire in the 2nd century B.C. and provided a land-link with their colonies in Spain. Simultaneously, it was also an important move into the colonisation of Gaul.

Celtic religion and society

If I may first briefly recall what was said about Indoeuropean religion and society in the last chapter, we can then compare similarities and differences with that of the Celts:

************************************************

Indoeuropean society was patrilineal and semi-nomadic, with pastoralism the principle mode of subsistence. George Dumezil once proposed a three-tiered system to Indoeuropean society which consisted of clerics, warriors and peasants involved in religion, judicial affairs and production. Derived from this three-tiered social system, some suggest, is the primacy of the number ‘three’, for triple mother-goddesses and triple-headed (or triple-phallused) gods are particularly Indoeuropean concepts.

More recently, Professor Renfrew reasoned that Indoeuropean peoples originated in Anatolia (7,000 B.C.) from where they very slowly migrated west, taking recently acquired farming know-how with them. Professor Gimbatus, on the other hand, reasoned that Indoeuropean peoples originated in Central Asia, north of the Caucus mountains (5,000 B.C.). Gimbatus referred to these peoples as the ‘Kurgan culture’, (‘kurgan’ meaning ‘tumali’), thereby uniting Professor Childe’s earlier designations of ‘corded ware’ and ‘battle-axe’ cultures.

Max Muller informed us that Indoeuropean peoples had spiritual ideas (‘an intuitive sense of the infinite’) developed from cosmological observations. These ideas also involved appreciations of ‘the soul’; a concept gained from extrapolating naturally occuring dualisms (e.g. ‘night and day’) to ‘the body’: Hence, ‘body and soul’. The Indoeuropean cosmological system involved a pantheon of gods, of which ‘Djeus’ was the chief god. In comparison with later Greco-Roman systems, however, this pantheon was rather simple, but it provided a ‘base’ from which later pantheons arose. In fact, Fantalov suggested five categories to the Indoeuropean pantheon: The god of the sky, a mother goddess, a thunder god, a god of the earth/underworld and a cultural hero.

Cosmological observations led to the Indoeuropean cyclical view of time involving birth, death and regeneration. Such views have remained central to eastern branch (‘satem’)

Indoeuropean belief systems, whereas many western (‘centum’) systems became teleological in following certain Greek philosophers upon this matter (e.g. ‘Aristotle’)

Finally, since all Indoeuropean religious systems involve world trees and serpents, it is suspected that these were originally proto-Indoeuropean notions. The practice of ‘sacrifice’ too was carried out by all Indoeuropean peoples, although sacrifice is the one universal practice (Hubert and Mauss. 1899) and not limited solely to Indoeuropean speaking peoples.

**************************************************** Thus summarized, we now move on to a description of Celtic religion and society:

By the time of the Hallstatt era, the Celts had developed complex social systems. These involved chiefs with ‘king-like powers’ and a caste-like system of priests (druids), warriors and farmers. Caesar similarly divided Celtic society up into three tiers of: 'Druids, knights and slaves’. Whilst women held equal status to men, even standing beside them in battle, there were, nonetheless, more male kinship terms than female ones and virilocal marriage (wives live amongst husband's family) was the norm. Hence, it appears to have been a male dominated society.

In religion, Celts were both pantheistic and polytheistic i.e. they recognized divinity everywhere in nature and they recognized a plurality of gods. Yet, this statement needs qualifying for Celtic customs were highly localised with a multitude of tribes recognizing a multitude of gods.

The gods were organized into a hierarchical system that reflected the Celtic hierarchical social system. Uppermost was an 'Absolute God' called 'Dyeus', whose name became absorbed into other religious systems (e.g. Greek-Zeus, Latin-Dieu). Secondly, there were the Mother- Goddess. She was ancient, having arrived on the scene at the dawn of pre-history and undergone several identity transformations. Then there were the regional gods associated with life, fertility, death and regeneration, for survival was a knife-edged activity and many natural forces acted against it (e.g. famine, disease, enemies). Many gods thus needed to be appeased. Finally, there were animistic spirits of trees, rocks and wells: Religion pervaded all aspects of daily life.

Celtic religion was based on a cosmology and a pantheon. In common with other Indoeuropean peoples, these aspects were linked by a mythology in which the sun was pulled across the skies by horse-pulled chariots. Hence, the chariot wheel (often drawn as a swastika), was a common motif and symbolized a constantly turning world. This motif also symbolized the world and skies turning together in synchronization by means of a connecting 'axle', which was, in fact, a mythical oak tree separating the sky and earth. Oak trees were thus considered highly sacred and upon their trunks grew mistletoe to indicate the presence of gods. In addition, according to the Roman historian ‘’, this mistletoe was cut down in a sacred ritual, on the sixth day of the first moon of the year, by white cloaked-druids, using a gold blade; an act that was consecrated by the ritual burning of two white bulls.

(taken from: Religion et Société en Gaule. Goudineau & Vernier. 2006. without permission)

Bronze-age Celtic religion thus appears to have been a more ‘fleshed out’ version of the Indoeuropean religion. Perhaps, simply because we know more about it. Either way, this is particularly apparent when we examine the Celtic gods in detail.

Celtic Gods

The hundreds of localised Celtic gods stress the heterogeneous nature of Celtic society. Hence, some Greco-Roman reports can be misleading. , for example, named by Lucan as one of

the major triad of Celtic gods, received very few dedications. In fact, only three have been found.

In the Gallic context, and we soon return to Lugdunam in detail, several gods were particularly recognised: Statuettes honouring them can be viewed at Lyons’ Gallo-Roman museum. The list below roughly describes those Celtic gods commonly known in Gaul. Nationwide homogeneity was the opposing, binding force to localised heterogeneity. Such a list thus enables us to think of a larger scale ‘Celtic identity’.

The 'Mother Goddess' appeared throughout the Indoeuropean world and was thus worshipped by all Celts. It is with her that we start:

1. The Mother Goddess

Figurines from 25,000 B.C suggest a universal prehistoric 'Earth Mother'. In fact, an egalitarian, matrilineal, goddess-centred, neolithic society has been suggested to contrast with a warlike, patriarchal, god-centred, Bronze age society. The primary proponent of this idea was the 19th century German historian 'Bachofen' who relied heavily on Greek (esp. Herodotus) sources. During the late 20th century, New-Age, pagan revival, this notion has been fortified; particulary through the writing of Robert Graves and his creative version of the 'triple goddess' (mother, maid & crone); Wiccan Witch groups, and New-Age feminist movements. Academically, however, this suggestion is contested.

Nethertheless, earth-goddesses certainly did play prominent roles throughout pre-history, notably in representing and promoting fertility and fecundity. The most famous examples are ‘Ishtar’ (Babylon), ‘Artemis’ (Asia Minor/Crete), ‘Isis’ (Egypt), and ‘’ (Greek). The ‘Virgin Mary’ (Christian) continues this tradition in modern times.

Female earth-goddesses counterposed male sun-gods; as did female moon-goddesses. Furthermore, in opposition to life-giving sun-gods, goddesses were often queens of the 'land of the dead' (e.g. Isis, in death-obsessed Egyptian religion).

In Celtic religion, particularly from the La Téne period, mother and child statuettes and friezes abounded. Frequently, these were ‘triadic’ in form (known in Latin as 'Daes Maetres' or 'Matronae'), and carryied baskets of fruit (). They were also particularly

associated with healing, hence shrines were built to them near healing waters such as springs (e.g. the source of the Seine) and spas (e.g. Aix-les-Bains, in Rhone-Alps).

In the Celtic world, mother-goddesses took on many localised forms e.g. Belissama, Brigit, , Rosmerta... to name but a few:

*************************************************

Next, following Lucan’s guide, are listed Taranis, Teutates and Esus:

2. Taranis:

Etymologically, the name 'Taranis’ is derived from Indo-European 'taran' meaning 'thunder', though note that in Hebrew too, ‘taram’ means ‘thunder’. Taranis was often pictured as a wise, patriarchal god holding a wheel (a symbol of change) in one hand. Mythically he battled against the popular 'hero figure' with dogs. The Romans associated Taranis with Jupiter.

3. Teutates:

The name ‘Teutates’ is derived from the Indoeuropean 'teut' meaning 'tribe’. He was thus chief ‘tutelary’god, a characteristic seen in Gaelic mythology whereby ‘Teutates’ is 'Tuath', and in German mythology whereby 'Teutates' is ‘Teuton’. As a ‘chief god' he was god of war, fertility and wealth.

Mythically, human sacrifices to Teutates were carried out by drowning victims in a 'cauldron of regeneration'. The Bronze Age 'Lindon Moss man' (found in Cheshire peat bogs) suggests there is truth in this myth, for this unfortunate soul met his end by being strangled, bludgeoned, drowned and having his throat cut!

The are some indications that Romans associated ‘Teutates’ with ‘Mercury’, which kind of clashes with any Lug/Mercury hybridization. One indication for this Teutates/Mercury association is that both gods were pictured in the company of a crow, the Celtic messenger between sky and land. Perhaps the ‘clash’ can be explained through J. J. Hatt’s revelations that Teutates and Lug were occasionally considered as two sides of the same god (Fig.13).

4. Esus:

As previously stated, few dedications to Esus exist and thus, perhaps, doesn’t deserve the importance to which Lucan accorded him. Nevertheless, his mythology is so representative of Celtic ecological beliefs, as we understand them today, that he is worth noting. It is difficult also, not to make parallels between ‘Esus’ and ‘Jesus’; especially on knowing his tale.

Esus was a woodcutter/carpenter god, which means that he destroys (trees) to regenerate (new trees or furniture). Death and regeneration are central aspects of Celtic philosophy. The Indoeuropean cyclical appreciation of time never converted to the Greek teleological outloook and hence were more in line with ecological systems and reasoning: The eternal wheel of life and death.

. The mythological tale surrounding Esus recounts his chopping down of a tree, which broke the axis between the sky and the earth. Nevertheless, this act was considered essential for whilst it put the cosmos in disarray, for a while, later new shoots formed and the tree (sky-earth axis) grew back. Hence, celestial harmony was re-established.

Apparently, according again to Lucan, Celts carried out human sacrifices to Esus by hanging victims in trees. Again, the parallel with Jesus who was sacrificed on a cross, is not too far off. His death too preceeded resurrection. And in this context it is interesting to note that both the Syrian word, 'Ezuzo', and the Hebrew word, 'Ezuz', mean ‘strength’, whilst in the Hebrew scriptures (e.g. Psalms 24:8) ‘Ezuz’ means ‘God’.

**********************************************

We now turn to other gods and goddesses which were recognized in Gaul; goddesses first:

5. Epona

Although being a mother goddess and thus patroness of fertility and harvests, Epona is specifically recognized for her connection with horses. Indeed, she is often pictured sitting side-saddle upon a horse, holding a cornucopia of fruit and corn, and accompanied by other horses or foals.

Horses were high prestige animals in Celtic society. Not only were they owned by the aristocratic warrior elite, and thus vitally important in warfare, but they also served vital roles as farm animals and Celtic women were responsible for planting crops and breeding livestock.

The horse was thus a symbol of fertility, sexual prowes, economic prosperity and war. As women generally tended to beasts and fertility was the domain of mother-goddesses, it was thus appropriate the patron-guardian of horses and protector of the cavalry, was a goddess. So it was with Epona.

Epona’s popularity was widespread, with three hundred stone monuments to her having been uncovered in Gaul. Here was one nation-binding, homogenous Celtic-identity creating, godly figurehead.

6. Rosmerta

The Roman practice of creating divine couples, whereby a Roman god was paired off with a Celtic goddess, brought Rosmerta to historical prominence. For, in that gallo-roman cross- cultural hybridization, Rosmerta became the consort of Mercury.

Until that time, Rosmerta was just another mother goddess responsible for fertility and abundance. Then, after becoming Mercury’s consort, she was worshipped both in Gaul and Britain, where she was known as the 'Good Purveyor' (M. Green. 1993), having the role to enhance the fertility symbolism of her husband.

As a goddess of abundance she is often pictured carrying a bucket, a tub, or a purse which were the Celtic equivalents of the Mediterranean ‘’ i.e. ‘horns of plenty’ (Hutton. 1991).

As shall be seen, it is quite possible that Julius Ceasar equated Mercury with Lug, when the Roman Empire dominated and submerged the Gallic. That being the case, Rosmerta could well have been the consort of Lug. From the few sculptures remaining of her standing beside her husband, it’s not clear to tell whether he was intended to represent Mercury, Lug, or a merger of them both.

7. Brigit

Brigit was the daughter of and acquired many of his characteristics. Thus, she was a goddess of loquacity, eloquence, literature and learning. In this regard, she was frequently called upon to give inspiring speeches to the troops before battles.

8. Belissima

As Celtic religion evolved, the sun also became a feminine god ('Belissama'), who was charged with ensuring that the cosmos was running to order. She was the daughter (sometimes sister) of the god ‘Bel’, who was also known as ‘Beli’ or ‘Bélénos’. Her name translates as ‘The brilliant light'. ******************************************************** And now to the male gods:

9.

Cernunnos was the stag-, Lord of beasts, who was often accompanied with ram- horned . On the Gundestrup cauldron, where represents one of the four seasos, he is seated in the yogic position of padmasana symbolising immortality. Indeed, the name ‘Cernunnos’ is linguistically related to ‘Cronos’, the Greek god of time, father of ‘Zeus’. Other images of Cernunnos often incorporate solar symbolism, such as a sun suspended between his antlers.

Evidently, with such striking ‘horn’ symbolism, Cernunnos symbolises sexual energy i.e. life-force. Yet, Cernunnos is also related to time; in particular, cyclical time. For the solar- wheel symbolism, inherited from Indoeuropean cosmology, re-inforces the ecological cycle of life viewpoint in which stags continually shed and re-grow their horns through death and regeneration.

10.

Here we have another ‘divine couple’, for Sucellus was paired with his consort ''. Sucellus is known as ‘the hammer god’ or ‘the good striker' and statuettes of him holding aloft his hammer are unforgettable for his bearded, fearsome regard.

The hammer, it should be noted, is a weapon used against underworld forces and it strikes with a determined finality. Perhaps the most horrible, but clearest, example of this is the way the hammer was once used as an implement to put sufferers out of agonizing miseries. A less ghastly example is the finality applied today as a judge casts judgement or as an auctioneer confirms a final bid.

Sucellus’s contact with underworld forces entails his being associated with ravens and a three-headed dog. Possibly he is symbolically related to ‘Dispater’ – An Etruscan god of dead

11. Ogmios

Ogmios, too, was associated with the underworld, for he escorted souls there to begin their after-lives. He is also portrayed as an old, bald, smooth-talking scholar who held the power of the spoken word and the invention of the runes has been attributed to him. Hence, just as he led people to a higher, after-death existence he also led people to higher learning.

12. Bel (Beli or Bélénos)

Simply put, Bel was the God of light and was often pictured holding an apple. In fact, the apple was so named after Bel i.e. 'apelo'. The same holds true for certain French place names: Montbelliard and Montpellier. However, whilst Bel and Belissima were part of the Celtic tradition, their provenances were not Indoeuropean, but Mesopotamian. Their arrival in Gaul was through Phoenician settlers.

*************************************************

As previously stated, this list is only the tip of the iceberg. A myriad of other Celtic gods were spread across the wide extent of the Celtic civilisation and represent its cultural, heterogeneous diversity. However, what the list does show is the more commonly recognized gods. These represent homogeneous cultural features of the Celtic civilisation.

The Druids

Druids and Greek philosophers were not so far removed with evidence suggesting strong links between them. Pythagoras, for example, whilst being an Orphic (a Greek practice) was heavily influenced by Druidism. Both were composed of ‘brotherhoods' which assembled in 'santuaries' to receive knowledge and training. Comparisons have also been drawn between Druidism and Indo-Iranian practices, suggesting Indoeuropean origins to both.

Druidic knowledge was encyclopaedic and it would take a novice twenty years to obtain it. Nevertheless, druids were highly socially priviledge and strong competition existed to join their ranks. These were hierarchical, with a head elected by his pre-eminence to become an ultimate spiritual authority, teacher, judge, civil administrator, political decision maker and guardian of traditions. And although Druidic knowledge included laws of nature, divinities, magic, , astrology, rituals, music, poetry and medicine there was no official druid- defining dogma. In this aspect, Druidism can be considered more a philosophy than a religion.

Druidism diffused into Gaul from the north. It was introduced by the Belges, who arrived around 200 B.C. bringing with them new religious/philosophical ideas, sanctuary 'colleges' for novices and funeral practices which showed a belief in the after-life.

In coming into contact with the Roman Empire, druidism suffered. Despite initially being tolerated by Emperor Auguste, under Emperors Tibere and Claude, druids were persecuted. A recorded example is that of the druid 'Maric', under Emperor Vitellius. In 69 B.C. Maric, prophesizing the fall of Rome, assembled 8,000 Gaules to liberate Gaul. However, his uprising was swiftly quelled and he was sent to the amphitheater in Lyon to face wild beasts. For some reason, which the spectators claimed to be a miracle, the animals would not eat Maric. Nevertheless, Emperor Vitellius still ordered him to be killed.

Celtic Sacrifice The Celts ranked sacrificial beasts in order of importance: Man, horse, bull, sheep, pig, dog. These were sacrificed to the gods as propitiatory offerings, being either burnt to the gods above or axed so that blood seeped through the soil to the gods below (a 'chthonic' sacrifice). In some cases, the carcass would be left rotting so that putrefied skin fell from the bones to be absorbed by the soil (see picture below).

On the other hand, Lucan named three Celtic deities to whom human sacrifices were performed in appeasement rites: Teutates, Taranis and Esus. In this, sacrificial victimes to Teutates were drowned, those to Taranis were burnt in a wicker frame and those to Esus were hanged. Human sacrifices were also undertaken by Druids for purposes. In which case victims were struck with swords and the future was foretold by observing their death throws.

This practice is reminiscent of many ancient sacrificial practices undertaken with the belief that gods identify with the victim at the moment of death. Thus, a post-mortem examination of the victims’ organs would indirectly examine the state of mind of the god. Note also the Hindu belief that the shivering and trembling of victims before sacrifice indicates the presence of a god, whilst for the ancient Greeks, if the victim did not shiver after having its head annointed with water, then it was not sacrificed. In fact, whilst water was the most common annointing substance, barley-groats, corn, bran or flour were also used, for all contained ‘life-substance’ (R.B.Onians. 1951).

Celtic sacrificial practices were thus continuations of ancient Indoeuropean practices, but they were also carried out by the Greeks and Romans; albeit in different forms. However, whilst animal sacrifice has always existed throughout the world’s religions, to the extent of being anthropologically deemed a universal core principle, human sacrifice does seem to have been particularly evident in Celtic culture. In particular, the Celts practiced the decapitation of their enemies, reflecting the belief that the soul, or ‘life-force’, resided in the brain. One Roman historian (Diodorus Siculaus) remarked upon this practice that:

'They cut off the heads of their enemies... and attach them to the necks of their horses. They embalm in cedar oil the heads of the most distinguished and preserve them in a chest to show off to guests. The Celts believed that if they attached the head of their enemy to a pole, the head would start crying when the enemy was near.'

On the other hand, a more recent historian (Brunaux) wrote that:

'A Gallic victory was always followed by butchery...at Ribermont, amongst the thousands of bones belonging to five hundred individuals, all the skulls were missing.'

At Ribermont, the headless corpses were then carried for two kilometres and hung from wooden beams, placed across a ditch, so that their decaying flesh would drop off as an offering to the 'chthonic' gods. Examples of other such sites do exist.

(taken from: religion et société en Gaule. Godineau & Vernier. 2006. without permission)

Whilst earlier expressing caution over taking these reports from Roman historians too literally, they do support each others' claims. Furthermore, archaeological evidence of such practices (e.g. Ribermont) does exist. In such light, perhaps the wish of the Roman authorities to outlaw Druidic activities can be understood. Fig. 21

Heads

- The sanctity of heads is not limited to the Celts. Head-hunters throughout the world have regarded the head as containing ‘life-force’.

- Heads used as drinking vessels imbue the liquid with ‘life-force’.

- The sanctity of heads explains why sneezes and nods were considered ‘holy’: Both are spontaneous, involuntary emanations of the life-force.

- The medical treatment of ‘trepanning’(boring a hole in the skull) was carried out well into the middle ages. It was believed to release evil spirits.

- Heads and bodies were often given separate burials. This was particularly true for adults, for the ‘life-force’ was acquired at puberty.

- The brain’s potency was applied by Irish Celts by mixing brain with earth to make a ball to project as a missile at the enemy.

(R.B. Onians. 1951)

Rituals were intrinsic Celtic religious practise in which Druids were essentially prestidigitators. Whilst some modern writers have elaborated excessively upon Celtic ceremonial customs (inventing rites, costumes and all manner of ritual paraphernalia), much is creative writing for 'New Age' neo-pagans to enjoy re-enacting. Nevertheless, notwithstanding such imaginative role-play activities, ceremonies were indisputably part of the Celtic culture of antiquity and took place in any sacred space ('sanctuary') set apart from the temporal world. For example, in forest clearings, fields, stone circles etc. Sociologically, maintaining social cohesion is said to be the primary reason for ceremonial affairs. Personally, I feel this generalising, blanket- analysis misses the roles that prophecy, healing, protection, conflict resolution, determining reasons for misfortune (e.g. Illness) and status promoting, played in such affairs.

Celtic vs Greek philosophy

Celtic ideas originate from similar, ancient sources as Greek ideas. Though they may lack the later Greek sophistication, they hold common concepts and it would be wrong to suggest that the Greeks alone started the trend of philosophically questioning the nature of 'The Absolute': Such deliberations are as old as the hills. In fact, in terms of astronomy, remarked that Druidical understandings were equally as advanced as those of the Greeks and Mesopotamians. Fair play to the Greeks, though, for making the technical breakthrough which gained them the prize of being the world's primary thinkers. Inspired by Sumerian and Egyptian pictograms that were being used to record trade transactions, the Greeks advanced the technique to record more complex ideas. This involved the creation of an alphabet of consonants and vowels through which philosophical deliberations could be recorded. In retrospect this may sound rather simple, but the consequences were enormous and assisted the rise of the Greek Empire.

Historical treatises can be guilty of considering pre-literate thought as 'pagan superstitions’, thereby consigning such thoughts to the intellectual trash can. However, though literacy helped distinguish and apply permanance to Greek thought, many of their ideas were simply regurgitations of older themes. The Greek Empire, whose centre was in the Eastern Mediterranean, was perfectly placed to receive cultural infusions and for those living contemplative lives there was plenty to ruminate on. The modern day result of such deliberations is that they instigated the western philosophical tradition. That our western philosophical heritage stems from civilised Greece, we can be proud. But should we really shun with horror any proposition that it may have evolved from 'pagan superstitions'?

Homer and Hesiod were two of the earliest writers upon Greek culture (c.1000 B.C.) and together they were responsible for developing the Greek pantheon into a culturally uniting ‘Greek’ mythology. Previous to their works, individually-based Greek city-states (polis) tended to emphasize cultural division. However, Homer and Hesiod were both proponents of a ‘pan-hellenized’ nation and the mythology they drew up involved not gods, but immortal humans with super-human powers: ‘...a conquering aristocracy holding up an upper-class ideal of urbane enlightenment’ (my italics), is how Bertrand Russel phrased it (1961). A dualistic religious/mythological system then existed, in Greece, whereby older, rural religions, involving fertility rites and Bacchic celebrations, were contemporaneous with Olympian mythology and ideals (see p.108 for more details).

Homeric and Hesiodic mythologies recounted family affairs and squabblings of the ‘immortals’ as well as any modern day t.v. soap opera. In fact, they were even more bloody and incestuous. Believe me, ‘Dallas’ and ‘Eastenders’ are mild in comparison. Yet, as the intricate plots of treachery and heroic exploits unfold, subtle references are given to help us understand ancient Greek conceptions on cosmogony, cosmology and consciousness. The occassional boxes that relate to these issues lean heavily on the analyses undertaken by the classicist R.B. Onaians in which Homer and Hesiod’s works feature strongly. From them we can learn much about early, pre-Socratic, Greek beliefs.

Undoubtedly, Indoeuropean ideas filtered down and influenced early Greek conceptions. Specifically, this was through the invasions of ‘Ionians’, ‘Achaeans’ and ‘Dorians’; Indoeuropean speaking peoples from the north. Yet, from the south, the Minoan culture reached its apogee around 1200 B.C. and this influence was willingly absorbed by the northern invaders. Only the Dorians kept their Indoeuropean religion. Classical Greek religion was thus a blend of all these influences: Indoeuropean, Minoan, Homeric and Hesiodic myths, and the rural, folk, fertility religions (Russell. 1946)

Greek philosophy per se, is traditionally regarded as beginning with ‘Thales of Miletus’ (6th Century B.C.), an Ionian of Indoeuropean origin who conjectured that water was the principal material essential to life (fig.15). He also considered the ‘psyche’ (soul) to be life’s animating force that acted like the wind i.e breath of god (fig.16). Along with two associates (‘Anaximander’ and ‘Anaximenes’) Thales is recognized as founding the ‘Milesian school’ which established a cosmological program seeking to explain the universe as a whole. This line of enquiry became known as ‘natural philosophy’ and was followed by other thinkers (e.g.

Xenophanes, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Pythagoras, Heraclitus and Parmenides), each with their own particular contributions, particularly towards the question of a ‘fundamental substance’ of the universe. Heraclitus named ‘fire’. Anaximenes named ‘air’. Empedocles named ‘earth, air, fire and water’. Anaxagoras envisaged a ‘material continuum’ created by a ‘cosmic mind’. It was the principal line of philosophic enquiry prior to Socrates. Hence, the above philosophers are known as the ‘pre-Socratics’.

Into this scenario we can now pitch Druidism for it was certainly one of the circulating religious systems of that time. In fact, Pythagoras himself received extensive druidic training. Druidism held beliefs in common with Orphism, such as the transmigration of souls. It also had no single mythical charter to authenticate its ritual; no founding prophet, and no codified dogmas for celebrants to follow. Hence, in reality, there was little to differentiate it from early Greek philosophy. Both modes of thought strove to discover primary elements of the universe; both believed in cyclical time systems, and both believed in souls. The question thus arises to what extent Orphism influenced Druidism or Druidism influenced Orphism.

Orphism was a slight diversion from the ecstatic worship of 'Bacchus' (pseudonym: ''), whose followers believed that rationalism restrained natural, impulsive behaviour. Intoxication, by contrast, liberated passions by infusing participants with godly spirit ('enthusiasm') to produce intense feelings of delight. Orphics, such as Pythagoras, concentrated more on mental than physical intoxication. That is to say, they believed in the acquisition of non-rational knowledge as a gift from the gods. Elsewhere, other religious practitioners may call this 'gnostic knowledge', 'spiritual awareness', or simply, 'Zen'.

Yet, the Greek thinkers also stood on the threshold of a new-style philosophy where mythological thought was being left behind and analytic thought of a new style was in the making. Learned druids kept abreast with new, in-coming ideas, but with their people consolidating territorial claims in central Europe, they were outside the circle of innovative developments occuring in the eastern Mediterrannean. They also refrained from encouraging literacy and proudly guarded their mythological tradition, all of which kept them out of the loop of the latest philosophical trends. Therein lies the root cause of Celtic and Greek ideational separation.

A brief glimpse of Heraclitus, Pythagoras and Parmenides helps show how Greeks ideas developed. Heraclitus, for his observation that there exists a parallelism between the operations

of the mind and the reality that it perceives - based upon ‘unity-in-opposites’. Thus, he pre- empted Kant and Levis-Strauss by well over two thousand years. He also believed that ‘everything flows’, thereby developing the material continuum theory of Anaxogoras. Many centuries later Hegel acknowledged his indebtedness to Heraclitus for these ideas. Pythagoras is important for his unique blend of scientific mysticism: ‘The universe is constructed from numbers’ (an alternative fundamental substance theory) and ‘souls re-incarnate and transmigrate’ (both oriental ideas). He was a strange one, possibly a shaman, and had some rather wacky ideas such as placing a taboo on the eating of beans - a at maths though. Parmenides stands out for his contribution to the ‘Eleatics’. This was a philosophical collective which included Zeno and Xenophanes, and which developed means to comprehend the world though reasoning, rather than senses. Such deductive thought (in which ‘non-evident' ideas are produced from 'evident' ideas) was revolutionary and central to the rise of Greek philosophical thought. (Honderich, T. 1995)

Incidentally, whilst Heraclitus resided in Ephesus (Turkey) both Pythagoras and Parmenides resided in southern Italy at a time when the Minoan civilisation was in decline. This Minoan culture (based on Crete) had long been a stepping stone between Egypt and Greece through which numerous cultural concepts and religious doctrines had passed. This included 'Orphism' with its believe in the transmigration of souls and the escaping of the wheel of birth in order to attain unity with God. Pythagoras was a disciple of this religious belief system and spent much time with Orphic communities.

Contemporaneously, Greek philosophy began making 'scientific statements' about 'primal substances' and 'solar eclipses'; particularly in Miletus (Asia Minor) where the Mycenaeans (descendants of Indoeuropeans) had settled. Furthermore, Alexandra the Great, in expanding the Greek Empire across Mesopotamia and Asia, helped many foreign ideas filter back from abroad; particularly from , Persia and Egypt. Greek thinkers, such as Heraclitus, Pythagoras and Parmenides, were thus poised to receive new incoming ideas and their consequent philosophies incorporated both rational and mystical outlooks. Indeed, a line between the two was not always so distinct.

Linguisticaly, of course, Proto-Greek was a close cousin of proto-Celt and close linguistic ties imply common world-views. Indoeuropeans, their linguistic parents, as we have seen held believes which reflected the nomadic Indoeuropean lifestyles i.e. monotheism. The same was true for Judaism. However, with linguistic divergence went divergent lifestyles. The Greeks

evolved into a sedentary, democratic society overviewed by an Olympian, pantheistic family. The Celts, on the other hand, continued with their nomadic existence and remained largely monotheistic. The hundreds of localized Celtic divinities came into being simply through multiple, societal sub-divisions.

Philosophically, then, Greek and Celt reasoning initially overlapped, then began to separate with the introduction of deducive thought and the effects of social change. Greek thought became increasingly ‘rational’ and developed in sophistication by questioning the act of reasoning. Arisotle, in particular, made a study of it ('The Rhetoric'), listing three types of proofs (logos, pathos and ethos). Such rationalizing, so it has been argued, also had important religious side-effects in producing a conceptual division between 'men' and 'gods'. Whereas earlier myths involved close, reciprocal interactions between men and gods, rational/theological musings changed the nature of 'The Absolute' into being a distant, transcendental, abstract deity. Michaelangelo captured this ‘distancing’ in his famous Sistene Chapel painting of and Eve's separation from God.

Others have argued that this 'man-gods’ division' reflects an evolutionary aspect to religious thought. Rational, deductive reasoning, they say, showed humans the way up the social evolutionary ladder towards scientific positivism. But in so theorizing, they may (inadvertently or not) reduce mythological thought to irrational conjecturing, thereby dispelling the existence of any 'logic of myth-making' - a rational process at work in the creation, and passing on, of myths. The alternative suggestion is thus that ‘pre-literate’ man mentally toyed with myths by inverting, reversing, swapping around and exchanging constituent parts ('mythenes') in order to aid contemplation. It’s a process that could be described as toying with a mental rubric's cube in which the smaller cubes represent the multitude of social elements and are manipulated to produce a pattern corresponding to one’s own social structure. Hence, in this scenario, myths are aids to thinking about social life and human existence, and thus are also rational modes of thought.

As Greek and Celtic thought became distinct, the Celts maintained a close connection to their gods which inhabited sky and earth domains. The domains were joined by a tree which symbolized an earth/heaven axle. Mythically, this tree was axed so that gods and men separated. However, this act of separation in the Celtic world was not a single event providing a singular reason for ill-being in the world (a 'theodicy'); such as is encountered in Judeo- Christian religion with the Adam and Eve story. On the contrary, in Celtic beliefs, the death of

the tree was a positive act inherent to the process of cyclical regeneration. The Indoeuropean ‘wheel of life’, which was maintained in the ‘satem’ Indoeuropean languages, thus remained central to ‘centum’ Celtic beliefs as was ritually re-enacted within Celtic ceremonies. Aristotelian philosophy, on the other hand, led Greek thinking along a teleological path. Namely, that life, the universe and everything is continually developing along a path of improvement.

Celtic/ Hinduism connections

There is, some say, a strong connection between Celtic and Eastern religions in which Druids are really westernised Brahmins. Further evidence is furnished: Firstly, Druids were an intellectual caste of judges, ambassadors, medics and priests, as are Brahmins. It was only the Roman propaganda which disparagingly portrayed Druids as ‘weirdo’ shamans and magicians. Secondly, to strengthen this Celtic/Brahmin link, consider the word 'Druid' which is composed of two parts: 'Dru' and 'vid'. 'Dru', in both (the best source we have on 'old Celtic') and Sanskrit means 'immersion', and both 'Vid' in Old Irish and ‘Veda’ in Sanskrit mean 'knowledge'. In other words, the word 'Druid' means 'immersion in knowledge'. Further examples are listed below.

Fig.22 Old Irish Sanskrit

righ (king) raja (king)

naib (good) noeib (holy)

arya (freeman) aire (noble)

anan (soul) atman (soul)

Then again, there's the prefix 'budh', which in Old Irish and Sanskrit means 'enlightened'. It was a term used to name both Britain's 1st century queen of the Iceni, who revolted against the Romans ('Boadicea') and the founder of Buddhism ('Buddha').

In addition, in both Celtic and Hindu traditions rivers are held to be sacred, with morning bathing a special ritual. In the west, the name 'Danu' (Mother goddess, river goddess) was applied to a number of rivers, in particular the Danube and Rhône (Ro [river] + Dhanu). In the

east this spiritual accolade was awarded to the Ganges. Note also that 's Thames, in Celtic, is the 'Tamesis', whilst a tributary of the Ganges is called the 'Tamesa'.

Furthermore, it is argued that Old Irish and Sansrit legal systems are too similar too be ignored. In the case of the Old Irish legal texts these are called ‘The Laws of the Fénechus'. In Sanskrit they are known as ‘The Laws of Manu'. Adding further literary ammunition, there are also the similarities between the 'praise poems', composed to honour warriors by reciting their deeds and genealogical ancestry. In Old Irish these were known as 'fursundud' and in Sanskrit, 'narasamsi'.

Finally, early Celtic religion was a solar religion in which the sun was symbolically represented as a four-armed swastika. This symbol was also employed to represent horse-pulled chariots, which were then in vogue. Indeed, the sun itself was said to be pulled by four horses which, consequently, were also held to be sacred. They were a favoured sacrifice of Indo- Europeans and the Old Irish. In fact, they are still considered sacrificial animals in Hinduism.

In Conclusion

The Celts arrived in France as newcomers seeking land around 800 B.C. Culturally, the earliest settlers brought with them elements of urnfield culture. But then, the Hallstatt and La Téne cultures too showed their marks as France was absorbed into the wider, homogenous Celtic empire.

Around 700 B.C., on the Mediterranean coast, incoming settlers of non-Celtic origin (e.g. Etruscans, Greeks and Phoenicians) began arriving by boat. In the case of the Celts on the Ligurian coast, a coalition was formed with in-coming Phoenicians; thereafter known as Celti- Ligures. Elsewhere, however, territory was contested and battles frequent fought with ripples of repercussions sweeping through the land.

Further north, in the district of Vienne, Celts (Allobrogues) and Greeks competed to gain control of the areas wheat farming potential and trade routes over the Alps. However, a semi- stable status quo somehow prevailed and they lived together in close proximity.

Distributed around the Rhone valley there was also the ‘Eduens’ (north), the ‘Sequenes’ (north-north-east), the ‘Ambarres’ (north-east), the ‘Helves’ (south-east in Ardeche), the ‘Vellans’ (south-west) and the 'Sugusiaves' (east): That is, to name the most major of the tribes.

In total, sixty Celtic tribes found corners of Gaul in which to settle down; raise children; plant crops, and engage in the competitive commercial network whereby Mediterrannean goods flowed up the Rhône valley, into Gaul, and into the Central European hinterland.

6. The Ligures

According to some reports, the Ligures were pre-Celtic people who once controlled a large area of France from the Mediterranean to Brittany. Untangling their provenance, however, is not straightforward. On the one hand they are said to be descendants of Neolithic 'Chasséens' (non-Celtic Anatolian nomads) who settled in France at an early date and are so named after archaeological digs uncovered their remains in the town of 'Chasse-sur-Rhone'. On the other hand, they are said to be a mix of Chaldeans (Assyrians), Phoenicians, Phoceans (Greeks of ancient Izmir) and Celts who settled in Gaul during the 1st millennium B.C. Thus the reality is slightly more complex than described at the end of the last chapter.

Liguria today, is a region stretching between the French and Italian Rivieras. Its capital is Genoa. In antiquity, it first came to prominence through the arrival of Phoenicians who arrived there in expanding their trade networks. The Phoenicians were the major, Mediterranean Sea- going merchant-travellers of their time and as maritime explorers they stretched out trade-links along the length of the Mediterranean and beyond, to the Atlantic coasts of Spain, Portugal and France. Even to Britain.

Primarily, the Phoenicians were seeking minerals, particularly tin, a vital commodity to alloy with copper in the production of bronze. Copper products which were produced during the chalcolithic period had the disavantage of being too soft as weapons. With military expansionism weapons needed to be harder and more resistant. The discovery of bronze thus held great military potential and was essential to military success. The only difficulty was in finding a steady supply of tin in the east; although Professor Renfrew does suggest that Anatolia was a source. Nevertheless, this lack of tin was subsequently satisfied with the discovery of mineral rich areas within the Atlantic Zone of Western Europe. In southern Spain the region of ‘Tartessos’ was first exploited for its minerals and then, as the Phoenicians searched further north, they found more supplies in Brittany and Cornwall. In fact, it was on discovering tin in Cornwall that the Phoenicians named the island in the North Atlantic, 'Pretannica'. The name stems from the Phoenicians word for tin i.e. étan'. In time ‘Pretannica’ became 'Britannica', and finally: 'Britain'.

Routes between Mesopotamia and Pretannica were soon established. At first these were sea routes following the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts. But these were found too costly in

time and shipwrecks, and so overland routes were explored. A trade artery was thereby established that stretched up the Italian peninsular, into France, up the Rhône and Saône, along the Seine, into Brittany, over the Channel, and into Cornwall. Another route crossed Gaul from Narbonne on the Mediterrannean coast, then along the Garonne River to arrive at Atlantic. In this way, the interior of France was opened up.

The British Isles is thus connected to Phoenician explorations. In fact, London itself has been traced back to the fall of Troy, for apparently Brutus, who led the defeated Trojans into exile, was granted a dream by the goddess Diana to go and found the city (Peter Ackroyd. 2001). A little too fanciful perhaps? Well, not only is there archaeological evidence of early trade links between Britain and Mesopotamia, but also the British motif of a lion and unicorn comes from the Assyrian Chaldeans. There is also talk of an ancient King '', father of kings 'Llud' and 'Caswallon', and whereas Caswallon is a definite historical figure who fought against Julius Caesar, ‘Lud’ and ‘Beli Mawr’ are more legendary. 'Bel', as we have seen, is actually Phoenician in origin. Finally, apparently Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II herself has roots, when traced back through her Tudor and Welsh ancestry, to these semi-mythical characters! (Mike Ashley.1998).

The Phoenicians were related to the 'Hurrians' (or 'Hurrites') who were (debateably) of Indoeuropean origin. These were peoples who had entered Mesopotamia either from beyond the Caucasus mountains in the north or, as some suggest, from Anatolia where their homeland had been along the Khabur River (Geoffrey Barraclough (ed). 1981). Migrating south-east, they then resettled beside the Euphrates, in northern Syria. Apparently, during this relocation, they were led by 'noble warriors' of Indo-Aryan descent who spoke a language similar to Indoeuropean. Hence the Indoeuropean link, for these Indo-Aryans (Figure.6) were descendants of the eastern 'satem’ branch of the Indoeuropean linguistic divide.

The sea-voyaging Phoenicians spread westwards across the Mediterranean. After establishing a base in , they then moved onto the Italian mainland along the Ligurian coast where they came into contact with the Celts. Contact was peaceful and a settlement grew in which the settlers became known as 'Celti-Ligures'. Apparently, they were successful Mediterranean pirates. In the Greek saga, the 'Iliad', for example, it is mentioned how was stopped on his voyages by 'two sons of Poseidon’ i.e. Phoenicians.

The Celti-Ligurians found themselves in an envied geographic location, however, and partly due to this fact they were constantly under threat. Many early Celtic settlers in Liguria (1200 B.C) were driven out by the 'Italiots', and some had even crossed over to Corsica, from where they were subsequently expelled (1100 B.C.) by the 'Korsi' (Thraco-Illyrians). However, a core group resisted all attempts to displace them from Ligurian territory and they grew stronger with each arriving ship of eastern Mediterranean merchants seeking refuge.

The second half of the 1st millenium B.C. saw the peak of Ligure power during which time their territory stretched far and wide. Indeed, the Ligures settled not only on the Ligurian coast, but all along the Mediterranean coast and into Spain which had recently accepted many Iberian refugees from sub-Saharan Africa where hyper-barren conditions had caused a mass population movement north. In Iberia the Ligures were welcomed and a cultural merger became known as 'Ibéro-Ligure'. Thus today, in the Province of Seville, we find 'Lake Ligure', mythically known as 'the lake of the dead', and in Andalusia we find ‘Ligure Town'. Andalusia itself, however, received its name from invading 'Vandals’ in the 5th century A.D.

In terms of religion, the Celti-Ligures of the Ligurian coast followed a blend of Phoenician and Celtic gods; reflecting their demographic mix. 'Belanus' in particular was a popular god attracting devotees from both cultural groups. But even in those days Belanus was already ancient. In fact, he can be traced back to the Assyrian/Babylonian pantheon of gods whose creation myths tell of ‘' (heaven), 'Bel' (earth) and 'ea' (water). ‘Bel’ is attributed with being both a creator and destroyer of the world, for he also brought about ‘the flood'. Furthermore, this Assyrian/Babylonian 'Bel' is ideographically linked to the Sumerian storm god ('En-lil'), who resided on the top of mountains. This link is feasible for the Babylonian god of war ('Bel Marduk') was married to a Sumerian Goddess ('Ninhursag').

Continuing on with ‘Bel’ referenecs, 'Bel' refers to the king who founded Babylon and built the famous ziggurat ('tower of babel'), as well as to the north-western semetic god, 'Ba'al', whom the early Israelites worshipped. In Britain, the name 'Bel' can be found in several, ancient, royal names (e.g. Cassibelin', 'Cymbeline') and was used by the Romans to name a northern river: 'The Ribble' (i.e. river of 'Belissama'). Finally, the British Celts, whilst honouring 'Belanus' and his consort '' during their springtime festival of '', like most Celts across northern Europe, celebrated by jumping over fires and leading their cattle through the smoke. Which all makes you think when you stand on Lyon's centre square of 'Bellecour'!

Yet, in reflecting their Celtic origins, the Celti-Ligures also showed animistic tendencies by holding water sources (springs), rocks and hilltops sacred. Mythologically, it is also reported that the Celti-Ligures respected both a god ('Lug') and goddess ('Lugina') who had a son. His name was 'Luz' and he lived in a cave, in the form of a snail, singing marvellous music. As he grew up, Luz came to be recognized as a multi-talented artisan, artist, metalworker, inventor of the harp, priest and warrior. Sounds very much like ‘Lug’, doesn’t it? Or perhaps an over- generous sprinking of artistic licence has been applied in this case.

Other Mediterranean mariners were the 'Phoceans'. These were peoples of Greek origin (possibly Athenian) who settled around Izmir ('Foça': in Turk) in the Gulf of Smyrna (Turkey) between the 10th and 8th century B.C. In those days, Izmir was the capital of the Ionian confederation of Greek city states in Asia Minor. From the 7th century onward the Phoceans were besieged by 'Sumerians' and 'Persians', despite forming an alliance with their 'Lydian' neighbours. Consequently, many Phoceans set sail to find safer places to live.

There is the tale of a fleet of Phocean ships, led by 'Photis', landing on the southern Gallic coast, where they were welcomed by the Celtic tribe known as the 'Segobriges'. Their arrival coincided with the Segobriges’ chief's daughter's ('Gyptis') wedding preparations. The Segobriges followed the tradition at wedding celebrations that the bride-to-be would pass a goblet of wine to whoever she chose as her husband. On this occasion, Gyptis handed the goblet to Photis. Her father, the chief ('Nann'), accepted her choice and gave the Phoceans land where their ships had landed. The Phoceans named their settlement 'Massalie' (Marseille).

Commemorative plaque at Duborg metro stop, Lyon

Massalie prospered under the joint interests of these Greek-Phoceans and Segobriges. Too well, it appears, for the Celti-Ligurians became jealous of their wealth and united under 'Caramandus', (of the 'Oxybiens' tribe) to beseige the city. The Massiliens asked the Romans for help and awaited their fate. However, in the meantime, many fled further north; some resettling at Vienne, others at the Lyon confluent. According to a commemoration plaque placed at the Duborg metro stop in Lyon, these Greek-Phoceans founded the city in 590 B.C.

Meanwhile, back at Massalie, the Romans finally arrived. Led by ‘Consul Opimus' they took control of the situation; defeated Caramandus, and dividing up Oxybien land amongst the Massiliens. The Massilien territory thus grew and the Romans got their first foothold on Gallic territory.

Concurrently, back home in Foça, hostile neighbours continued their attacks which intensified and reached a climax when the Persian king (Cyrus II) arrived and destroyed the town (546 B.C.). This was the final straw for the wealthy Phocean merchants who had been hanging on to their homes and livelihoods. They fled west in their merchant ships to find refuge in the established colonies. Hence, they too arrived at Massalie, Aegitna (Cannes) and Nikaia (Nice) where they helped develop these sites further into large commercial centres.

This was bad news for the Celti-Ligures who were already being squeezed out between the Massaliens and the growing might of the Roman Empire. Seeing that their days were numbered many drifted into Germany, where they came up against fierce Germanic tribes and so drifted eastwards, over the Alps, and into central France.

The fall of southern Ligurian culture thus occurred with the rise of the Roman Empire. But not only was the Roman Empire beginning to stretch out tentacles, other Celtic tribes were also growing in strength. In the Rhône region, the 'Segosiaves' took on the Ligurians who had moved north to settled in central France. It was a swiftly concluded battle and the defeated Ligurians then became integrated into Segusiave culture

7. The Segusiaves

The ‘Segusiaves’ were a Celtic tribe who fought the 'Ligures’ and conquered their territory to the west of the Saône. Mythically, they descended from the goddess 'Segeta', with whom Lug was in love and kidnapped. The name 'Segeta' actually means 'the fecund one' and the Segusiaves were thus 'the people of Segata'. We therefore have a territorial base for them, a mythical apical ancestress, and a possible indication that they carried out bride-capture. In parallel, there exists a Greek myth in which Zeus captures a princess from Tyr. The mirror image of Greek culture never seems to far from the Celt.

The Segusiaves thus arrived from the east, crossed to the west of the Saône, conquered local Ligurians and took control of the lucrative river trade. This involved exchanging gold, silver, gems and timber (from the Central Massif area) with the Mediterrannean peoples down river in return for spices and textiles.

The Saône meets the Rhône at the Lyons confluent. Flowing south, in Segusiave days as now, it linked central France with the Mediterranean. To the north-west was the , which linked this region to the Atlantic. The Segosiaves thus held a strategic position and their territory was large, including the forested region of the Central Massif, otherwise known as 'Les Monts du Forez'.

The capital of the Segusiaves was at ‘Feurs', which today is a small, quiet town between the Rhône and the Loire. The Romans named the town, 'Forum Segusiavorum', designating it as a commercial centre (i.e. market town). It was then a central meeting point for several Gallic 'tribes’ as well as being a site to enlist support for Vercingetorix's anti-Roman campaigns.

‘Feurs’ is on a natural route linking Lyon and Bordeaux, Vienne and Clermont Ferrand. The town is also situated upon the ancient 'tin route' which once linked the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, and the Cornish tin mines. Situated thus, the international trade benefited the Segusiaves well and the tribe's prestige grew. Though quite insignificant today, Feurs was once far more important.

As postulated whilst examining ‘the etymology of Lug’ (ch.3), the word ‘lug’ possibly relates to the Indoeuropean word, 'lugios', and this was defined as 'trickery' or 'shrewdness'. In which case, Lug’s importance to the Segusiaves is evident, for dealing in their commercial networks involved as sharp a business acumen as in any of today's financial institutions. Possibly then,

Lug was a patron of commerce, creating wealth for his people: A personification of commercial skill.

Yet, Lug's 'cleverness' would have been manifest in other areas too. Good craftsmanship is highly valued in community building where practical knowledge of materials and artisanal techniques are essential. Possibly too, Lug personified such practical creativity by having the ability to transform nature and make it habitable.

In fact, this is a personalization of Lug that one often finds when surfing the net to see what others have to say about him. For there, he is generally considered to be a multi-talented craftsman; a carpenter, mason, blacksmith and agriculturalist; a head druid with mystical authority over war, journeys, re-incarnation, healing and prophecy. Yes, even a harpist, artist and poet, for life needs some cultural diversions. In fact, Lug seemed to have his hands in all pies. Practically any skill or knowledge essential for daily survival, it seems that Lug possessed it and apparently this is how he was known by the Segusiaves of the central Rhône region; possibly throughout the whole Celtic Empire.

Julius Caesar, in his reflexions upon the Gauls, wrote:

'...of all the gods, they most worship Mercury. He has the largest number of images and they regard him as the inventor of all the arts, as their guide on the roads and in travel, and as chiefly influential in making money and in trade'.

Most commentators agree that Julius Ceasar believed Lug to be a Gallic manifestation of Mercury, whose name he substituted for his audience back home in Rome. And on the surface, his description does sum Lug up well: The original, epitomal, jack-of-all-trades. However, there are far too many strings to tie up to leave it at that. The Lugdunam myth for a start and Lug’s connection with the crows. And we still haven’t examined Lug in the context of Lugdunam. That, then, is where we next turn.

8. Gaul

Different etymologies have been suggested for this word:

1. The English words 'Gaul' and 'Gaulish' are derived from the French words 'Gaule' and 'Gaulois'. In turn, these French words are derived from the German root 'walha-' meaning non-germans (German 'w' becomes French 'gu/g’ e.g. ‘war’ – ‘guerre’)

2. It is derived from the proto-Indoeuropean word ‘gelh' meaning 'powerful'.

3. It is derived from the River Gallus in Anatolia, from where Cybele worship originated. The term was applied by the Romans to the Galatian Celts who had become Cybel Devotees.

4. In common with the etymology of 'Galatians' (Celts in Hellenized Turkey), the word is of Greek origin, from 'gala' meaning milk, and relates to the Gauls' milky white skin.

Whichever etymology is correct there is no doubt that by the 2nd century the term 'Gaul' was applied by the Romans to Celtic France. This area included ('') and south-eastern France ('transalpine Gaul'). 'Cisalpine Gaul' was further sub-divided into 'cispadane Gaul' (this side of the river Po) and 'transpadane Gaul' (the other side of the river Po).

Following pleas for help from the Massilians who were under siege from the Celts and Ligures, the Romans arrived in Gaul in 125 B.C. They quickly took control of the situation and profitted well from it, so that by 121 B.C. they had annexed the transalpine Mediterranean region.

Roman administration gradually re-organized the land, the most major steps being taken under Julius Ceasar's command who arrived in 58 B.C. to deal with the mass influx of Helvetes. He then stayed, dealing with internal insurgency and external threats from across the Rhine until the were concluded in 51 B.C.

Politically, in dividing up the land, Ceasar labelled southern transalpine Gaul, 'Provincia'; a name that was later changed to ''. This term refers to the Mediterrannean region that was principally composed of , Lepontii, Greeks, Phoenicians, and Celto-Ligures. The northern region of Gaul, he labelled 'Northern Gallia Comata', which described the land 'south-west of the Rhine, west of the Alps and north of the Pyrenees'.

Ethnically, in dividing up the land, Julius Ceasar denoted three peoples: The 'Belgae' (celt/germanic tribes); the 'Aquitania' (celtiberians) and the ‘Celtic Gauls'. This ethnic sub- division was then applied by the Emperor Augustus (27 B.C.) to create three administrative regions of France. Namely: ‘Narbonesis’, ‘Aquitania’, ‘Lugdenensis’.

The capital city of Lugdenensis was Lugdunam. It held great importance throughout Gaul due to the Condate sanctuary where representatives of the sixty Gallic tribes gathered each year to pay hommage to Rome. Furthermore, an imperial mint was built here and consequently the city was considered Europe's second major city after Rome. Lugdunam was thus, at that time, the principal city of Gaul.

Map.2

Gaul 52 A.D. (adapted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallia_Belgica

Map.3

(Adapted from: Histoire de France. Les Dirigeants). Lug in France:

In France, Lug place names are widespread, with present day examples having survived from the ancient regions of Acquitania, Belgica and Celtic Gaul (see below). In view of this ubiquitousness, it is likely that the Celtic god Lug was known in Lugdunam.

Map.4

Lougdounos Myths

The sun is sinking behind my back and I stand upon the Fourviere heights looking east towards the Alps. Other observers too gaze forward in silence and together we contemplate, pulling up our coat collars against the biting, autumnal wind. Stone steps, in a semi-circle of descending rows, stretch downward. Unmoved by time, they remain embedded upon these Fourviere slopes. Once upon a time, and on warmer summer nights, they were occupied by aristocratic Romans who came sporting the latest togas to watch a Greek play in comfort. Celts too got a view, freely merging with their Roman overlords.

Far below, at the base of these slopes, Lyon’s two rivers join. The confluent is imbued symbolic fecundity, for whilst different in character their union is a uniting of opposites: The masculine (le) Rhône, turbulent and fast flowing, the feminine (la) Saône, sedate and smooth.

Sculpture representing rivers Rhône and Saône Sculpture representing rivers Rhône and Saône Pont Kitchener Marchand Lyon stock exchange. Rue de la Republic

Eyes scan over the city to the distant mountains beyond, their snowy peaks now a delicate shade of orange as they absorb the sun’s setting rays. It is autumn and a chilly breeze whips up fallen, dying leaves which swirl in a gust, then gently flutter down to a pile of windswept debris. The treetops are stark. Denuded of leaves they stand as naked as flesh-stripped bones. Suddenly, black streaks sweep across the skies. As menacing shadows, they draw near and descend upon the trees with rattling, triumphant cackles: ‘Caw, caw’. Prophets of doom, messengers of darkness, the crows have returned from their summer’s sojourn upon the Asian

Steppes to signify the approach of winter.

The arrival of crows and winter

Myth 1:

There was a man ‘Arar’ who entered the forest boarding the river ‘Brigoulos’.

There he found his brother, dead, having been torn apart by wild animals.

Arar, in his distress, became suicidal and threw himself into the river. From then on the river became known as the ‘Arar’.

A mythological account of the end of Celtic rule and the arrival of Roman rule. 'Brigoulos' is Celt. 'Arar' is Latin. The Latin replaced the Celt.

Myth 2:

Two brothers, Mômoros and Atepomaros, following the instructions of an oracle, came to Fourviere to found a Roman sanctuary. Whilst they were digging foundations a flock of crows arrived. The brothers decided to name their site ‘Lougosdounos’. In their dialect ‘Lougos’ meant ‘crow’ and ‘dounos’ meant prominent place’.

Myth 2 is an account of the founding of the Roman sanctuary, at Fourviere. The brothers applied their own vocabulary to name the site ('lougosdounos') which was later latinized ('Lugdunam'). The brothers were Greek. Possibly they were from Vienne, possibly they were descendants of the Greek Massilians who had fled north in 590 B.C.

The account, note, was first recorded by the Roman historian ‘Pliny’ and shows remarkable ressemblance to the myth of the founding of Rome by the two brothers, Romulus and Remus, who also looked to the skies to decide upon the placement of the city’s foundation whereby twelve vultures were seen by Romulus and six by Remus. The two brothers then ploughed their foundations according to where they had each seen the vultures. Unfortunately, at some point, Remus crossed over to Romulus’ side, who killed him. Thus, from its origins, Rome was divided into two (the ‘Palatine’ and the ‘Aventine’) with rivalry existing between the two sides.

Mythologically, then, Lugdunum was similarly named by two Greeks digging the city’s foundations. Apparently, their inspiration came from seeing a flock of crows arrive and in their dialect 'luogos' meant 'crow' and ‘duonos’ meant ‘prominent place’. Hence they named the city ‘Luogosduonos’. Under the Romans, the Greek ‘duonos’ became the Latin ‘dunum’ and ‘Luogos’ became ‘Lug’. Hence, ‘Lugdunum’. These first two terms (‘duonos’ and ‘dunam’) are semantically and linguistically similar. However, the correlation between ‘luogos’ and ‘lug’ refers to a deeper symbolism:

Universally crows represent death: They relish the border between summer and winter, light and dark, when earth’s life expires. Crows also fly and in the sombre, autumnal skies they descend from the heavens above as black-cloaked death-eaters with ghastly croaks to revel in the decay below

Similarly, the Roman god ‘Mercury’ (an imitation of the Greek god ‘Hermes’), was a flying god that passed between cosmological domains i.e. between gods, men and the underworld. For this reason, images of Mercury were often accompanied by crows. Yet, crows also accompanied Apollo, the Roman sun-god, and both Apollo and Mercury were complemented with images of cocks i.e. symbols of the rising sun. Complementary or oppositional dualisms were all part of the mythological play. Perhaps this can best be shown diagrammatically (see below):

Fig. 24

Complementary: Mercury (Lug*) Apollo

Crow Cock

Oppositional: Apollo Mercury

*Julius Caesar’s famous quote in describing the religion of the Gauls, ‘...of all gods, they most worship Mercury’ (p.78) is taken by experts to refer to Lug.

Mercury (crow) and Apollo (cock) were thus two sides of the same coin. A mythological yin- yang. And Mercury replaced both Hermes and Lug. A mythological colonialization. Nevertheless, 'Lug' remained the city's prefix, with the image of a crow representing the city. Today, this is little known and it’s more likely that the oppositional image of the sun (i.e. Apollo) is used to represent the city.

10.Roman Lugdunum

Prelude to Roman arrival

Overlooking the Lyon basin from the north stand ‘Mont d'Or’ and ‘Mont Thou’. Etymologically, ‘Mont d'Or’ means 'mountain of gold', and so it appears at dawn when the sun's rays first strike its slopes. ‘Mont Thou’ is less evidently defined and three solutions have been proposed. Firstly, it could be derived from the word ‘taurus', hinting at previous druidic rites involving bulls. Then again, it could be a shortened form of the Celtic god 'Teutates'. Alternatively, and thirdly, it could be derived from the Celtic word for oak, 'taou', of which many are there to be found. Oak trees held special Celtic significance in symbolizing a link between the earth and the heavens, and upon their branches Gods were once said to rest. One knew when they had, for they left mistletoe traces used by druids for magical concoctions.

Upon the Mont d’Or and Mount Thou slopes one can follow winding paths through the woods. On so doing, small dry-stoned houses are occassionally chanced upon. There are about four hundred of these in total, haphazardly scattered amongst the trees. Apparently, they were once inhabited by Celts and have been continually restored and used up until recent times! In this region they are called 'carbornes', but their presence is not limited to these slopes for similar structures are present throughout Beaujolais and where they are known as 'cadoles'. In the region of Puy they are know as 'chibottes'; in the Luberon, 'bories'; around Nimes, 'capitelles', and in Italy, 'trulli'.

A carborne hidden in the woods of Mount Thou

On chancing upon these ancient dwellings hidden beside muddy tracks, a different world in a different time is envisaged: Dirty, bare-footed children squeeling as they chase a lizard. Mothers chatting as they grind corn, or feed babies whilst stitching cloaks with slender bone needles. And fathers tending the forge; carrying water; repairing a roof, or choosing a goat for next week's sacrifice. Of course, it's also possible that these shelters were simply used by shepherds spending summer seasons up here to mind their flocks before returning to pastures below when autumn arrived.

Yet, there is another picture offered, for these slopes were once populated by those Greeks who had fled north from Massalie (Marseille). Today's village of 'Couzon-au-Mont-d'Or', for example, take's its name from the Greek island of 'Cos'. The slopes of Mont d'Or were considered ideal for planting vinyards and archeaological digs have turned up numerous shards of pottery of Mediterrannean and oriental provenance. The Rhône valley had linked the Mediterrannean to Central Europe since the early Celtic Hallstatt period and a constant flow of material culture had continually passed by these villages of antiquity.

Way below the Mount Thou slopes, Condate became established as a new 'cosmopolitan' centre sometime around the fifth century B.C. Previously considered too marshy and prone to flooding, early settlers had remained higher up on the Vaise plains and Mont d’Or slopes. However, realizing that the swampy ground at the confluent was ideal for growing flax, whose fibers could be spun into cloth, the district became a centre for the birth of the linen industry. Hence, Condate became an established site for traders and settlers which soon included 'Orientals' and new waves of in-coming Celts. Life was then just a little more modern and industrious than it had been on the Vaise plains and the Mont d’Or or Mont Thou slopes and manufactured goods were sent down river in rudimentary sailing boats whilst exchangeable products arrived up stream from the south. This state-of-affairs endured for centuries until disruptive external affairs encroached.

Thirty kilometres south at Vienne (mid 2nd Century B.C.), the Celtic tribe known as the '' had long wrestled with the Greeks. Primarily, this was over control of Alpine trade passages and wheat producing agricultural land. Nevertheless, both cultures managed to get along together with minimal conflict. Then the Romans arrived and changed the status quo. Invited into Gaul by the Massalie to help against barbarian attacks, the Romans initially showed little interest in inland Gaul. Rather, they preferred to establish control along the Mediterranean coast and into Spain, particularly since they’d had centuries of conflict with the North African Carthaginians and were intent on keeping this threat at bay.

However, the Romans were never left completely undisturbed in their southern strongholds, for Germanic and Celtic tribes frequently sent raiding parties to attack their outposts. Thus, the Romans were forced to slowly annex and fortify towns further north. The French region of 'Provence' takes its name from this period in signifying an early Roman-Gaulish 'province'.

Temple of Augustus, Vienne.

Roman arrival

The two fiercest opponents to the Romans stretching north were the 'Allobrogues' and the 'Arvernes'. Together, they joined forces and battled against the Romans. However, they were unsuccessful and through their defeat the Romans gained Vienne as their northernmost post in Gaul (121 B.C.) This may have given the Romans greater control over the region, but they were still continually harassed by other rebellious Celtic tribes; not to mention the Germanic tribes in the east.

In the south, the Roman Empire had installed itself so completely by this time that the Narbonne people petitioned the Roman senate to recognize Narbonne as a . Their petition was accepted (118 B.C) and Narbonne inhabitants ('Narbonnaise') became Roman citizens. Narbonne then became the most populated city in the South of France and the capital of the region.

Central Gaul’s situation was entirely different and problems there were just beginning to arise. In fact, began in the east when a new influx of Celts arrived from the Swiss Alps (58 B.C.). These were the 'Helvetes', displaced tribespeople who were under pressure from Germanic tribes to move west out of their lands. Thus began a mass exodus of fleeing Celts seeking to cross Gaul and find refuge on the Atlantic coast. They numbered more than a hundred thousand, including women and children. Julius Caesar (proconsulate of Illyria, Gaul Cisalpine and Gaul transalpine), seeing their vast numbers, feared that they would destabilize central Gaul and so refused their entry into Gaul by destroying the bridge across the Rhône at Geneva. In response, the Helvetes simply turned north towards the Jura and crossed into land controlled by the 'Sequanes'.

In fact, Julius Ceasar was right. This mass influx did destabilise the region. The Helvetes destroyed fields, captured villages and enslaved the populace as they progressed west. Consequently, Gaulish tribes (Sequanes, Eduens, Ambarres, Segusiaves and Allobrogues) turned to Caesar for help, perhaps not fully appreciating that Ceasar was a strategist who considered situations more globally than immediate, pressing issues. Hence, in following his own militaristic ambitions, which he justified to the Roman senate by assuring them of the need to staunch the German leader's ('Arioviste') expansionist designs, Caesar campaigned against the Helvetes. Simply put, he effortlessly steered them towards (Bourgogne) to be massacred; men, women and children. Only thirty thousand survived and these were sent packing back to Helevetia and Arioviste’s waiting warriors.

Julius Ceasar’s occupation of central Gaul gained momentum. In fact, he famously declared that: 'if Romans didn’t take control of Gaul, the Germans would'. Consequently, many battles were fought to subdue both the Gauls and the expansive Germans, even crossing the Rhine to keep these later peoples at bay. The Belgique tribes (‘Bellovaci’, ‘Nervii’, ‘Aduatuci’), in the north, too constituted considerable threat and Ceasar spent much of 57 B.C. subdueing them before taking on the tribes of Brittany where he savagely repressed the ‘Veneti’. Apparently: ‘All elders were put to death and the rest of the fighting force who surrendered were sold as slaves’ (Cunliffe. 2006).

Seeing the renewel date for his five-year term of office approaching, Julius Ceasar then sought a spectacular success to present to the Roman Senate. He thus looked towards Britain. However, continuing conflicts with the northern and Germanic tribes delayed conquest of that

island to a later date, even though a preliminary (unsuccessful) foray was made there in 55 B.C. The winter of 54-53 B.C. saw a peak of fighting for Ceasar’s forces on the continent, during which he even lost one troop to a Belgic tribe (‘Eburones’). But the ‘Amoricans’ in Normandy, and the ‘Senones’ and ‘’ in Brittany were also in continuous open revolt; not to mention the ‘’, ‘Suebi’ and ‘Ubii’ across the German border (Cunliffer. Ibid). Caesar never did subdue them.

Ceasar dealt with resistance systematically, ruthlessly targetting rebellious tribes. In total, sixty tribes existed in Gaul which held some degree of homogeneous identity. This centered around the ‘Cernutes’ for it was they who held the annual assembly of Druids. Druidic chiefs attending these affairs came from tribes across Gaul and consolidated a Pan-Gallic identity. This included a joint, Pan-Gallic action to combat the Romans. Thus began the final battle for Gaul with word for resistance being sent out through the inter-tribal network. (Cunliffe. Ibid)

Famously, the Gauls were defeated at (Bourgogne) in 52 B.C. Their leader, ‘Vercingetorix’ of the Arvenes, was captured and tied to the back of a cart. He was then led around Gaul for six years before being dragged back to Rome to have his throat ceremoniously cut.

History has shown countless times the danger of inviting military forces in from outside to deal with internal, domestic problems. The problem being that once 'in’ it can be very difficult for foreign armies to extracate themselves and get ‘out'. So it was with Julius Caesar who 'came, saw and conquered’; turned the Gallic situaton to Rome’s advantage, and stayed for nine years. His return, however, was not welcomed by all. Years earlier (58 B.C.), along with ‘Gnaeus Pompee’ and ‘Marcus Crassus’ (reknowned for defeating the slave revolt led by ‘Spartacus’ in 71 B.C.), Julius Ceasar had previously formed the first Roman ‘triumvirat’ (a three-way political alliance). However, following Crassus’ death in battle in Syria in 53 B.C., Pompee had been nominated sole ‘Counsel’ by the Roman Senate and the triumvirate was disbanded. Residing in Rome, he was keen to maintain his central position of power.

Fearful of Julius Ceasar’s growing power, Pompee forbade his return to Italy. More famously, he forbade Ceasar to ‘cross the Rubicon’; the frontier river between Gaul Cisalpine and Italy. Ceasar ignored the order; ‘crossed the Rubicon’, and chased Pompee out of Italy. Their armies then met at Pharsale in northern Greece (9th 48 B.C.) where 15,000 of

Pompee’s men died in battle. Pompee fled to Egypt and was assassinated one month later. Hence, Julius Ceasar gained absolute power of the Roman Empire, and before long he had reduced the power of the Senate; introduced a new ‘Julian’ calendar, and granted himself the titles of Emperor and Supreme head of the military; titles he proclaimed on himself for life.

Tides and fortunes changed, however, and Julius Ceasar’s life was famously cut short: He was murdered by opponents who disagreed with his taking ultimate power on 15th March 44 B.C. Civil war then erupted and battles raged across the Roman Empire as two opposing factions clashed: The supporters of Marc Anthony (Julius Caesar's friend) and supporters of Octavius (Julius Caesar's son and heir).

Meanwhile, back at Vienne, dissent was growing as the mixed Greek and Celtic populace continued to endure Roman occupation. Their main complaint was that trade was being lost to the Romans and so they joined forces to oust the Romans from the town. Incredibly, at a time when the Roman world was rocked by civil war, they succeeded. Consequently, in 44 B.C., the year Julius Caesar was assassinated, the Romans who had occupied Vienne became a wandering troop of refugees along the central Rhône valley!

During the ensuing unrest, these Romans found themselves being tactically manoeuvred on the Roman senate's battle plan. They were ordered north to establish a colony at the Celtic settlement of Condate and thereby prevented from joining forces with those who held allegiance to Mark Anthony. In so doing, they established a strategic stronghold in the heart of Gaul from where links north, south, east and west could be developed once the troubles had calmed down.

The turbulent times did, eventually, calm down. In 31 B.C. Octavius won the pivotal sea 'Battle of Atrium' against a coalition of Mark Anthony and ’s armies which effectively ended the war. Octavius then quickly strove to restore peace across the Empire; although mopping up the last pockets of resistance in the Alps occurred somewhat later (16-13 B.C.). As absolute, undisputed victor Octavius was awarded the title 'Augustus' by the Senate: A title he initially refused, but later accepted.

Taking control of the rampaging inflation that had spiralled out of control as a result of the civil war was top of Augustus’ list of priorities. He closed the mint in Rome (40 B.C.) and opened imperial mints across the Empire. In Rome the mint did re-open for a short time (19-12

B.C.), but then re-closed as Augustus chose Lugdunum as the site for the production of coinage for western Empire (15 B.C.). From here, coinage could be produced to pay his armies fighting Germanic tribes across the Rhine. This imperial mint necessitated a military force to protect the Empire's wealth and troops were moved into Lugdunam in large numbers. Their garrison was based in St. Just (near today’s ‘Minimes’ metro stop) and counted between 500-1,000 soldiers.

The founding of Lugdunum.

History records that Lyon was founded by Governor Plancus (87 B.C.- 15 B.C.) on the 9th October 43 B.C. In fact, the site was initially under the dual leadership of 'Lucius Munatius Plancus' (governor of central Gaul) and 'Aemilius Lepidus Paullus' (governor of transalpine/southern Gaul). However, Paullus was soon recalled to Rome and executed for having backed the wrong horse (Mark Anthony) in the civil war.

Plancus was more fortunate. Although he too had initially supported Mark Anthony, he quickly switched sides when the balance began to turn in Octavian's favour. With such dubious loyalties Plancus was not held in too high regard by the Roman Senate and though recognized as the founder of Lugdunam, this governorship was not a positive career advancement for him. It was intended to discreetly keep him away from Rome and with time his reputation and authority fell.

Yet, lest we forget, history also records that Lyon was founded in 590 B.C. This was by the Greeks chased north out of Massalie; as the plaque at Duborg metro stop in Lyon affirms (see photo p.75). The site had thus been inhabited for at least half a millenium before the Romans arrived and when the Celts first arrived there (5th century B.C.) they named the site ‘Condate’; their word for ‘confluent’.

The founding of ‘Roman’ Lugdunam entailed the laying of north-south and east-west roads known as the ‘decamus’ and ‘cardo’. Roman towns are all based upon a ‘square-block’ structure. For a long time, the archaeological quest was to locate these ancient 'decamus' and 'cardo' roads. But then, between 1942 and 1965, excavations slowly revealed the 'decamus' lying beneath 'rue Cléberg', in Old Lyon. It was detailed in archaeological reports as ‘a fine,

granite-paved street 312 metres long and 8.88 metres wide’. The ‘cardo’ too has since been found and partially excavated.

Initially, the Romans named this site: ‘Colonia Copia Felix Munatia’. In receiving the designation of ‘Colonia’ (‘colony’) it received certain fiscal privileges and became the taxation centre of Gaul. The term ‘Copia Felix Munatia’ symobolically granted it prosperity and blessings from the gods. Later, under Emperor Claude, who was born there in 10 B.C., the name changed to ‘Colonia Copia Claudia Augusta Lugdunam’.

A hypothesis exists, credited to reknowned Lyon archaeologist A. Audin, which states that by noting deviations of the 'decamus' and ‘cardo’ from their original alignments, the foundation date of Lugdunum can be calculated. Since the ‘decamus’ always pointed to the sun-rise in the east, Audin arrived at the foundation date of 10th October 43 B.C. A date which corresponds to the migratory return of crows. Now, according to ‘The Lugdunum myth’, two Greek brothers saw such a flock of crows return whilst digging the city’s foundations. This, we just noted, was in 590 B.C. And so, Audin combined archaeological and mythological data to confirm his exact foundation date of Lugdunum. Hmm. Take it or leave it. Something appears amiss. The myth, by the way, was first recorded by the Roman historian, Plutarch.

In 27 B.C Emperor Augustus (Octavian) divided Gaul into three provinces: , Gallia Acquitania and Gallia Lugdenensis. Lugdunum then became the capital of Gallia Lugdenensis for it was the area’s taxation centre and it held the state mint. In 12 B.C. Lugdunum also became the Gallic centre of the ‘state cult’. This involved the consecration of a shrine dedicated to the divinity of Rome and Augustus. The building of the shrine was undertaken by ‘Claudius Nero Drusus’, nicknamed ‘Germanicus’ (38 B.C. – 9 A.D.), who was overall governor of Gaul and son-in-law of Augustus. The site chosen for the shrine was the sanctuary of the Gauls and was a highly political choice.

The Lugdunam santuary

Sanctuaries, in the Celtic world, were sacred spaces which, viewed chronologically, slowly became increasingly complex: First there were the bronze age sites used for naturalistic worship and these included stone circles. Then there were sites centred around 'anepigraphic steles'. These were posts representing the 'mythical tree' around which the world and heavens

turned. These sites sometimes also contained hero statues. More complex sanctuaries contained simple architectural structures (e.g. 'porticos'), which became increasingly ornate. Finally, there were sacred sites completely designed as towns.

Sanctuaries sanctified not only ceremonial affairs, but also the affairs of daily life e.g. arts and crafts, the production of coins, animal slaughter, banquets, commercial exchange, conflict resolution, voting and political issues. Thus, Gallic sanctuaries were centres of community life: A blend of the 'Sacred and profane', with municipal buildings and organizational structures in place to maintain their upkeep.

The Lugdunum sanctuary was located at the foot of the Croix-Rousse hill and was acquisitioned by the Romans in a way that was highly political. This occurred as Emperor Augustus Octavian was planning to visit Lugdunam in 12 B.C. and Dresus, Octavian's son-in- law and Governor of Gaul, sought to mark the occassion with something rather special. He planned to present Augustus with a symbolic offering of the new Gallic territory by displaying its complete subservience to Augustus and the Roman Empire. And to achieve this aim, Dresus employed the cultural significance of the Gallic sanctuary at Croix-Rousse and utilized the importance it held in symbolizing Gallic identity.

Recalling that the Cernutes of Brittany had previously held annual gatherings of druids and tribal chiefs from where plots had been hatched and directives sent to tribes throughout Gaul to join forces and fight against Ceasar, Dresus ordered the annual gatherings to continue. However, he decreed that these would now be held at Lugdunam. All of Gaul’s tribes, represented by their druidic chiefs, were obliged to attend and all would pay homage to Augustus.

What a master stroke! The Gallic sanctuary was to be dedicated to Emperor Augustus and thus, by extension, the Roman Empire. It was a political statement legitimizing and sacrilizing Roman rule, for an assembly of Gallic druidic delegates representing the sixty Celtic tribes of Gaul would symbolically bow before Rome. Furthermore, central to the sanctuary would be an to Rome engraved with each tribe's name. And stretching out from this altar would be sixty statues of the sixty delegates of the sixty tribes, all facing towards it. Then finally, to completely hammer the point home, these delegates would therefter assemble before the alter

every year to continually pay their homage. By all accounts, Emperor Augustus was well impressed.

Since tribal representatives were to come yearly to Lugdunam from the three divisions of Gaul ('Gaul, Acquitaine and Belges'), the sanctuary became named 'The Sanctuary of the Three Gauls' and Lugdunum itself became known as ‘The Capital of the Three Gauls’. The annual gathering took place each August 1st, a date traditionally recognized as the feast day of 'Lug'. The event lasted for nearly three centuries. Hence, squeezing as much symbolic juice as possible from the consecration of the Gallic shrine to the Roman Empire, Dresus used Lug's revered status to formalize the shrine’s investiture and coins were produced to commemorate the event. These showed Mercury, who ideographically replaced Lug, with his consort Rosmerta holding the symbolic drink of sovereignty.

The santuary fell into disuse when the Roman Empire collapsed and Germanic tribes finally took control of Gaul. However, coins produced at the Lugdunam mint provide us with images of the sanctuary's altar. It sat upon an oak leaf decorated pedestal and was framed by two 10.5m high Egyptian granite columns, each topped by 3.5m high statues of Victory. Though the alter has long since gone, the Egyptian columns survived and have been in the church of St. Martin d'Ainay since the 11th century.

Church of St. Martin d’Ainay. Roman coin showing altar to Augustus flanked by two pillars The last four pillars before the altar are from the Croix-Rousse sanctuary. Originally, before being cut in half, the four were two.

Evidently, then, Lug was a highly significant Celtic god who was forced to play a central role in the assertion of Roman power. Furthermore, his feast day (August 1st) was known and used to advantage. Of course, good Roman Empire spin doctors would have stressed the conciliatory and integrationist aspect of the gatherings, pointing out how the Gallic representatives had received personal ring-side seats at the federal amphitheatre (adjacent to the sanctuary) for their troubles, from where they could watch gladiatorial combats in style. Or, in emphasizing Roman religious tolerance, they would surely have mentioned the appointment of ‘Caius Julius Vercondaridubnus’ (an ‘’ druid with a very Latin name) as head priest of the new jointly-run sanctuary.

For the Gauls at Lugdunam, however, there was little choice but to accept Roman occupation and watch the colony grow in population and importance. Yes, they received certain conciliations, such as Roman citizenship after serving twenty-five years in the Roman army as their Narbonnaise cousins had for some time, and yes, they soon saw the benefits of increased trade as overland road links were opened up. But many remained disgruntled (Guide Bleu. 2004).

Emperors in Lugdunum.

Several emperors and imperial family members came out from Rome to visit Lugdunam during the first years of the new millenium; some for extended stays. came first in 4 B.C and then again 21 A.D. en route to battling against German tribes who continued to pester the Romans from across the Rhine. Drusus came frequently, even once staying for four years (13- 9 B.C.) during which time his son, the future Emperor Claudius, was born. Caligula’s visit was slightly later (39-40 B.C.), and is best remembered for the spectacles put on in his honour.

No doubt, most know of Caligula’s more infamous ‘spectacles’, but on one particular occassion, when entertaining King Ptolomy of , he included rhetoric competitions for writers in which losers had to publically criticize their own works, plus auctions where he alone chose prices and buyers. Inventive, perhaps, but not everybody’s idea of fun! Incidentally, Caligula later had this guest murdered, shortly before receiving his come-uppance for declaring himself to be an immortal ‘god’. To this declaration Rome’s crack military squad, ‘The Praetorian Guard’, proved his mortality by murdering him. They then ‘persuaded’ an unwilling Claudius to take up the Emperor’s purple robes .

It may be useful to see the first Roman Emperors listed:

Fig. 23

Julius Caesar Caius Octavian Tiberius Caligula Claudius I

Life: 100 BC-44 BC 63 BC -14 AD 42 BC - 37 AD 12 BC - 41 AD 10 BC -54 AD

Reign: 27 BC - 14 AD 14AD - 37 AD 37 AD - 41 AD 41AD - 54 AD

Relatives: Nephew/adopted Son of Tiberius Great nephew Uncle of son of Julius Claudius Nero of Tiberius Caligula, son Caesar Claudius Nero of Dresus Claudius Nero

Lyon’s ancient name 'Colonia Copia Claudia Augusta Lugdunum’ (CCC AVG LVG) replaced ‘Colonia Copia Felix Munatia’ during the reign of Emperor Claudius. He died in 54 A.D. but the name stuck in his honour in the reduced form, ‘Lugdunum’. Claudius, being born in Lugdunum, took a special interest in the city and its people. In fact, he once specifically went to Rome to argue the case before the Roman senate for Lugdunum people to receive Roman citizenship. This meant that the Gallic elite would become eligible to vote in affairs of state; a privilege previously granted to the Narbonnaise.

Within his speech to the senate the following words were recorded as pivotal to his argument:

“If the Gauls were granted this only as a result of ten years of war, they would disrespect our divine Julius Caesar. Better to have their loyalty and obedience for one hundred years than test their critical conjectures of us.”

Admittedly, this does sound rather convoluted, but the senate approved the request and Lugdunum's citizens were granted Roman citizenship; being registered under the ‘Galerian’ tribe. To show their gratitude to Claude, the people of Lugdunum had his speech engraved upon a slab of bronze ('The Claudian Table'). This was kept on a marble pedestal in 'The Sanctuary of the Three Gauls'. The bad news is that this immensely important relic was lost for centuries when Burgundian forces invaded Gaul in the sixth century A.D. The good news is that it was later rediscovered in the sixteenth century A.D. lying broken in a vineyard that 'The

Sanctuary of the Three Gauls' had become. Today, it can be viewed in Lyon's Gallo-Romain museum.

The second most important achievment of Claudius for Lugdunam was the bridging of the river Rhône. The river had long proved an obstacle and the bridge opened up faster, easier trade routes east towards Germany and south towards Vienne and the Mediterrannean.

International affairs too occupied Claudius at this time, for the invasion of Britain, in the summer of 43 A.D., had finally taken place Before long, victory over the Trinovantes tribe at Colchester effecively captured this long sought prize for the Romans and Claudius attended the final surrender ceremony. Total domination of Britain came a little later (51 A.D.) with the defeat of the , led by Caratacus, in the west of Britain. Like Vercingetorix, Caratacus too was led to Rome. However, unlike Vercingetorix, Caratacus’ life was spared and he was allowed to life freely with his family in Rome. This he achieved by giving a defiant speech on arrival in Rome which suitably impressed Claudius. Which just goes to show the effectiveness of good oratorial skills.

Following Claudius in the purple robes was Nero, the Emperor who supposedly played his fiddle as Rome went up in flames. Nero did not visit Lugdunum. But when the Gallic town too caught fire, coincidentally in the same year as Rome (64 A.D.), Nero sent money for its restoration. This was exactly the same amount as was sent just a few months earlier from Lugdunum to help restore Rome.

Nero died in 69 A.D. He committed suicide. Then began, ‘The year of the four Emperors’, which ended with Vitellius in power. In fact, Vitellius was proclaimed Emperor by the Germanic troops that he commanded for swiftly dealing with a major Gallic uprising. The troublesome hot-spot was Vienne, where anti-Nero forces had gathered to battle against the pro-Nero forces stationed at Lugdunum. They were led by ‘Caius Iulius Vindex’, a Gallo- Romain from Lugdunum. Vindex had the support of Nero’s successor, Galba, for the short time Galba was in power. But Galba’s time was short, and even shorter was the next in line, Orto’s term in office. Vitellius sent his head commander, ‘Fabius Valens’, to quell the uprising, which he did, and visited Lugdunum soon after to proclaim and celebrate his victory; killing off many off his opposition in the process. Other rebels from Vienne were then forced to give up their arms and pay a hefty compensation (Pelletier. op.cit). Nevertheless, Vitellius’ joy was short-lived for he too was dead before the end of the year.

Next, Vespasian stepped into Vitellius’ shoes. But not for long either. Cholera took him down just two years into his reign. Then along came Titus, who also died after two years, at the hands of his wife! Domitien, the next in line, faired rather better by managing fifteen years in power. He did visit Lugdunum, once in 83 A.D. and once in the winter of 88-89 A.D. , both times to put down internal revolts.

Lugdunum under the Romans

The Gallic Wars changed life in Gaul for good. Before they erupted Gauls, Greeks and ‘Orientals’ had been actively engaged upon a thriving river trade which linked the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, and to the central European hinterland. And various modes of production had been involved as wheat, oil, wine, soaps, fish sauce, perfumes and other oriental products had daily passed up and down stream. This trade was loosely administered and revolved around village/tribal units. In the case of the Gauls, druidic chiefs met together once a year in Brittany to induce a degree of inter-tribal solidarity, but national homogeneity was still a long way off.

This all changed with the wars. Firstly, in jointly resisting the Romans a certain unification was achieved. Then, in defeat, all Gauls suffered the same homogenizing experience. The greatest changes, however, came after the wars as the Romans settled in and established their super-efficient administrative system which implanted a national infra-structure upon Gaul. This drastically modernised the land and enabled further developments to take place.

No doubt many were initially suspicious of Roman designs. What recently colonized peoples do not view their colonizers with distrust? And rebellions did occur, the most significant being that of A.D. 68. (discussed above). However, it appears that with time the efforts of the Romans to modernize Gaul began to be appreciated. That was an important marker post in Gallo-Romain relations and once past a relatively peaceful Gallic-Romain community slowly emerged. In Lugdunum, the colony developed into a modern city of central importance to the Roman Empire. This involved the setting up of formal administrative structures to regulate daily affairs (‘e.g. tax and legal affairs departments’) as shown below. The Gallic Condate quarter, note, was separately administered by the Gauls.

Fig. 26 (see Pelletier. op.cit. for details)

Governance Administration Finance Imperial Cult Condate

Governor Magistrates Procurer Flamine Magistrate (elected by Decurions*) (Head priest- elected by Decurions*)

Chancellor Questor Exacti Sevirs Honoratus (finance officers (Scribes) (‘elders’-elected (‘elders’) of state and army) by Decurions*)

Functionaries Aedile Cornicularii Pagani (resposible for and (villagers) public building Beneficiarii and festivals) (office managers) Emissaries

Clerks Duumvirat *Decurions – cavalry officers commanding (judiciary) a troop of thirty.

Lugdunum's growth was quite outstanding. Having been nominated as ‘The Capital of the Three Gauls’ the city became Gaul’s administrative and commercial centre. Whoever wanted to engage in trade, it is said, came to live in Lugdunum and after Narbonne it was the second largest city in Gaul (pop. 35,000). While pottery workshops and metal-working forges provided the hardware and bakers provided the daily bread, merchants bought and sold not only wine, oil and wheat, but also soap, perfumes, fish soups, oriental products, and even books. Later (mid-1st century A.D.), glassware production too became an important enterprise using glass blocks imported from the middle east. That is, according to excavations at Croix-Rousse (2000-2001) where fourteen glassmaking ovens have been unearthed

Before the Romans came, Lugdunam’s trade links were largely determined by its two rivers (Rhône and Saône). These trade links were then greatly fortified by the construction of four long-distance roads going out from Lugdunum towards: The Mediterrannean, The Rhine, The English Channel and The Atlantic. Lugdunam then became a central hub from where long- distance roads radiated out. The road-building works were carried out under 'General Agrippa' (63 B.C -12 A.D.) and the primary purpose was to aid troop movements throughout Gaul, particularly towards Germany where campaigns were continually being fought. A secondary result of building the roads was to ensure the city’s political and economic supremacy in Gaul.

The Four Aqueducts

Agrippa also began the construction of ‘the four acqueducts’. Despite being so close to the Rhône and Saône rivers, the Roman settlement was at the top of Fourviere hill where initially there was a problem of water supply. The solution was the building of the aqueducts and collectively these channelled 40-45,000 litres into Lugdunum per day, in lead-piped conduits, from Mont d'Or (26 kms), Yzeron (40 kms), Brévenne (70 kms) and Gier (86 kms).

Actually, only the acqueducts from Mont d’Or and Yzeron were begun in Agrippa’s time, during the reign of Augustus. The acqueduct from Brévenne was built during Claude’s reign and the one from Gier wasn’t completed until Hadrian’s reign. This last aqueduct was particularly impressive due to its length (86kms) and complexity, for it contained several pumping systems which were installed to raise water en route at particular, troublesome spots. Yet, incredibly, despite its length, water fell by just 110 metres and arrived at 60 litres per minute.

Gier acqueduct at Chaponost

These awesome structures stretched across the countryside as artistic monuments to Roman ingenuity, their slender arches showing patchwork patterns of brick and stone. Today, the best place to see them is at Chaponost, ten kilometres from Fourviere. From here, the basilica can be seen in the distance, over and beyond undulating green fields and tower-blocked city-scape.

As to the personnel involved in building the acqueducts, information is sparse. It appears that the military provided a large source of manpower in both skilled and unskilled labour, and that several teams worked on the projects at the same time. But whether the Gauls were hired (or

enforced) to contribute their labour remains speculative. It is known that the Romans paid for certain commodities (in money, wheat or oil) and didn’t simply ‘acquisition’ them, so the question of Gallic ‘enslavement’ is in doubt. (personal communication: J-C. Litaudon).

The city of Lugdunam

At this time, under Roman control, Lugdunum consisted of three urban districts:

1. 'The Lugdunum colony' :

The Roman city grew up around the ‘decamus’ and ‘cardo’ of Rue Cleberg, known today as the ‘Les Minimes’ quarter. This site held the most impressive monuments to Roman glory. Further out residential zones spread across Fourviere hill, particularly during the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., onto the adjacent ‘La Sarra plateau’.

The monuments consisted of:

A theatre:

This was the oldest in Gaul (16-14 B.C.) and seated 4,500 spectators before being enlarged by Hadrian to seat 10,700. The seating area then became 108.5m in diametre. The renovations also installed large pillars beside the stage from where a curtian could swing across the stage. The theatre lay hidden for centuries beneath earth, rubble and undergrowth, before being re- discovered in 1914 and excavated between 1933-50.

An 'odeum':

This was built under Emperor Hadrian (160 A.D.) for music and recitations. It seated 3,000 spectators in a semi-circled area 73m in diameter. The stage area was partly roofed and hence surrounded by two formidable walls 6.45m thick. A curtain from this roof could then be lowered and raised. Entrance into the theatre was through five huge doors leading to an upper seating ring and through two white marble paved passageways to a lower seating ring.

Amphitheatre at Fourviere

Two forums: 'Forum Vetus' and ‘Forum Novum’:

Forum Vetus:

This had foundations measuring 140m x 61.5m. It held two temples: ‘The Capitolian’, which was immense and contained huge 20m high columns, and ‘The Temple of Augustus', which was smaller (48m x 15m) and accessed via an esplanande supported by a strongly fortified wall today known as ‘Mur Cleberg’.

Forum Novum:

This was built a little later than the Forum Vetus on the La Sarra plateau. It measured 120m x 90m. It’s largest monument was the 'Temple of Jupiter', which was as huge as ‘The Capitolain’. This forum also contained the 'Temple of Cybele', which covered 4,200 sq. metres, as well as a smaller ‘Temple to Mercury’ and a ‘Temple to the Mother Goddess’.

Stretching out into the residential quarters around the forum, the most notable archaeological finds have been: ‘The Villa of the Mosaics’, discovered in 1914 and originally belonging to one ‘Egnatius Paulus’. It contained a great, mosaic-floored hall (14m x 12m) as well as several smaller rooms adorned with frescos and mosaic floors; ‘The Hall of the Gladiators’, a small room on the north side of Fourviere and was so called due to the graffiti enscribed on its

fresco-lined walls and ‘The House of the Sea-Horse’, a house with well-preserved frescos on the northern side of Fourviere.

2. 'Condate'

Both banks of the Saône were inhabited and formed the second urban district of Lugdunam. The territory was termed ‘pagus condatensis’, for here lived the ‘pagani’ (Gaullois villagers) with their own administrative council (fig.23).

- Situated on the western bank, below the northern slopes of Fourviere hill, were Roman villas and baths.

- Situated on the eastern bank, below the Croix-Rousse slopes, was an industrial area where potter’s kilns, bronze-making forges and glass-making ovens stretched 500 m along today’s ‘Quai de Serin’. Incidentally, the potter’s kilns here were square, in contrast to the normal Gallo-Roman round style, which suggests important links with potters from Arezzo, in North Italy.

- On the Croix-Rousse slopes was 'The Sanctuary of the Three Gaules', beside which stood ‘The Federal amphitheatre’, built in A.D.19, (under Tiberius), specifically for the Gauls of the three Gallic states whose representative delegates had individually named seats. This ampitheatre too was later enlarged under Hadrian who added decorous arches and extra tiers of seating. It was also the site of the martyrdoms of forty-four Christians under Marcus Aurelius in A.D.177.

3. 'Canabae Island’

This was not really an island, but a swampy, marshy area where nobody initially wanted to live, until it was put to the growing of flax (see p.84). Today this area is known as the ‘Ainay’ quarter (2nd arrondissement) situated between the two rivers from Bellecour south to the isthmus’ tip. The area first became habitable as river fronts were constructed to control the flooding and facilitate trade. Docks were first built in the ‘Choulans’ district, across the river and close to the confluent, but were later moved up to the St. Georges area to be closer to the merchants’ warehouses. Canabae Island was also partitioned by a road crossing from west to east:

- The southern quarter was inhabited by merchants who built magnificent villas. Several fine mosiacs from these villas have survived, including the famous ‘circus’, ‘fish’, ‘four seasons’ and ‘swastika’ mosaics. Today, these are kept in Lyons’ Gallo-Roman museum. Many of these merchants arrived from ‘the east’ as Lugdunam grew in prosperity. It was they who bought with them the eastern gods (e.g. Bacchus, Hermes, Pan) and other cultural interests (e.g. circuses, chariot races and gymnasiums).

- The northern quarter contained the warehouses, inns and shops of these merchants.

Roman Emperors from Nero to Marcus Aurelius

Fig. 27

Nero came to power, aged 17 years, after Emperor Reign Death Claudius died eating poisoness mushrooms. In 67 A.D. he sent substantial financial aid to Lyon after a devastating fire. In fact, this Nero 54 – 69 A.D. Commited suicide was the same amount as Lugdunum had sent Nero following Rome’s fire of 64 A.D.

Galba 69 69 A.D is known as: ‘The year of the four Emperors’. This was due to power struggles Ortho 69 for the imperial throne which set Lugdunum and Vienne apart as warring enemies. Finally, Vespasian emerged victorious. He Vitellius 69 was the first emperor not of Augustus’ blood line. Vespasian 69-79 A.D. Died of cholera From this time began a peaceful, Gallo- Roman age, which lasted for over a century. Titus 79-81 A.D. Assassinated by wife The economy boomed and in Lugdunum, large building projects were undertaken e.g. Domitian 81-96 A.D. Murdered temples, acqueducts, baths, roads etc.

Ampitheatres extended under Hadrian. Nerva 96-98 A.D. The most advance (Gier) acqueduct built.

Germanic tribes invaded N. Italy in 166 Trajan 98-117 A.D. Dies of ‘painful A.D. Gaul too sufferred threats from wasting disease’. Germanic tribes across the border. This destabilized the region and the economy suffered. The Christian martyrs were put to Hadrian 117-138 A.D. death in Lugdunum in 177 A.D.

Titus Aurelius 138-161 A.D. Died of the bubonic Severus and Albinus battled for Lugdunam in 197 A.D. Antoninus plague (the black

death, ‘la peste’)

Marcus 161-180 A.D. Aurelius

Religious Pluralism

In pacifying Gaul, the Romans permitting a high degree of religious liberalism. Cosmopolitan Lugdunam saw several religious cults flourishing as Celtic, Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Mesopotamian gods happily co-existed, mixed and merged. So much the more surprising then that Lug was so little represented, even if he was hybridized with Mercury.

Religious syntheses, such as the union of ‘Lug/Hermes/Mercury’, abounded; possibly facilitated by the gods being Indoeuropean cousins. Dumezil’s tripartitie system equated ‘Jupiter (sovereignity), (war) and (production)’ with ‘Mitra-Varuna, Indra, and Nâsatyâ’ in Hinduism and ‘, Thor and Freyr’ in Norse myth (Lechte, J. 1994).

Commonly known was the Greek ‘myth of Achelous’ in which ‘Hercules’ battled with a bull, seized it by the horns and offered them to the goddess 'Copia'. This was a symbolic gesture to thank the goddess for fertilizing the earth. Horns were a symbol of fertility. Likewise, Mercury’s (or Lug's) consort, Rosmerta, was pictured holding the 'corn of abundance' with which to bestow plentiful harvests and good fortune upon her people. On coins minted at Lugdunum, the suggestion is that this was upon the Lugdunum townspeople. In fact, a few specific points concerning ‘horns’ should be made: Fig.25

Horns

1. Linguistically 'horn'= 'corn', and the term 'cornucopia' refers to 'fertile abundance'. A ‘' (a horn fashioned out of straw) is a traditional love gift.

2. In Irish mythology 'Leugh' takes horns from ‘Balar’ to offer in thanksgiving. Lug, like Hercules, is a provider of fertility and abundance.

3. The autumnal celebration of 'harvest festivals', are continuations of Celtic practices. Traditionally, the festivals were celebrated on August 1st, the feast day of Lug. In Britain, the events were known as 'Lamas’, ‘Lugsadh' or 'Samildfach'.

4. In the second century A.D., 'The Genie of Lugdunum’ image continued this 'cornucopia tradition' in symbolizing a 'fruitful Lugdunum' on coins. The ‘Genie’ metaphor related to Claudius Albinus, governor of Britain, who came Lyon to fight for the Emperor’s robes.

5. Genie’, or ‘Genius’, ‘the life/clan-spirit of the family (a Roman manifestation of mana), like the psych, was transmitted by the custom of receiving the last breath’.

(R.B. Onians. 1951)

The Romans, we saw, updated ‘Luogos’ to ‘Lug’; a Celtic god’ who became equated with Mercury by Julius Ceasar. As also seen, this re-naming act was highly political. It dedicated the city to Rome and subjugated Gallic socio-religious identity to the Roman Empire. Then, through the yearly gatherings held at ‘The sanctuary of the three Gauls’, Roman domination across the whole of Gaul was continually affirmed.

Understandably, the largest temples in Lugdunam were the Roman ‘Capitolian’ and the temples to ‘Augustus’ and ‘Jupiter’ (p.94). But the temple built for the goddess 'Cybele' , which contained a massive sculpture of her seated upon a lion surrounded by four 'taurobolic' alters, was also excessively large. Its surface area encompassed 4,200 sq. metres of the Fourviere plateau. Cybele thus deserves special attention:

Cybele

Cybele’s origins are Anatolian where she was considered an 'earth mother' (i.e. a symbol of fertility). Her consort was her son, Attis, who was driven mad with incestual, oedipal jealousy for her and as a result he castrated himself and died. However, saddened by the loss of ther son, Cybele brought him back to life as a pine tree.

The myth of Cybele and Attis is a typical, ancient, ‘life-death-rebirth’ saga and Cybele worship generally involved ‘orgiastic rituals of music and dance’. The central festival of the year was an ecstatic celebration during which priests would sacrifice their own genitals in memory of Attis. The festival, held every March 24th, was known as ‘castratation day', or 'Dies Sanguinis' (day of blood).

Cybele worship was the most popular oriental cult in Ludunam and a temple to her was built on the Fourviere heights. The dating of this temple has been seriously debated. A. Audin, Lyon’s premier archaeologist, initially gave a date of 160 A.D. However, as a result of A.Desbat’s more recent research (1990’s) a date of 5-10 A.D. is proposed. Quite a difference. Nevertheless, six or seven altars adorned with bull reliefs have also been found which also contest to the popularity of Cybele: Bull sacrifice ensured the well-being of the Emperor and the colony of Lugdunam (Pelletier. 1999).

At some point in Cybele’s rise to prominence, the ecstatic nature of the religious rites became more ritualised and priests wisely chose to sacrifice the testicles of a bull rather than their own. Actually, the bulls were ritually slaughtered so that blood ran down through wooden slats to a space below where a priest stood waiting to be drenched (baptised) in blood. Some say ‘Rue de Boeuf’ in 'Old Lyon' takes its name is remembrance of these practices. Then, when the authorities saw ritual castrations continuing, they stepped in and outlawed Cybele worship.

How popular Cybele worship was amongst the Celtic population is difficult to judge for the population of 'orientals' who brought Cybele to Lugdunum grew fast (30% by the second century A.D) and her cult had already been the Roman state religion for nearly two centuries before the founding of Lugdunum. In fact, the senate had first accepted Cybele as the state goddess in 203 B.C. and presumably, throughout Roman Lugdunum’s history, she continued to attract Roman adherents.

However, the naming of the Celts as 'Galli' may suggest that the Celts did adopt Cybele worship: The term (possibly) comes from the 'Gallus River’ (, Anatolia) where Cybele worship originated. Of course, this notion contrasts with more ecological concepts of Celtic religious practices of quietly pondering life's mysteries through communing with the spirits of water, rocks and trees, for Cybele worship was a frenzied, drunken orgy with bloody acts of self-mutilation. However, the Celts were not so pure and too had a history of rejoicing in bloody sacrifices.

Speculatively, the question of a ‘religion of the oppressed' may be raised, despite the Romans soon showing themselves to be quite equitable colonisers in allowing a free market for religious consumers. Perhaps Cybele worship, for some Celts at least, was a cathartic release from feelings of frustration and discontent, internalized due to the perceived (or real) suppression of their cultural identities. However, on this question I speculate no further, for apparently, in the heady air of religious freedom, resentment of Roman occupation slowly dissolved into acceptance. And as alternatives to Cybele worship became available, it began to lose adherents and followers switched to more current deity fashions.

Mithraism

Mithraism existed in Lugdunam less than might be expected for it was generally popular with Roman soldiers. Nevertheless, two relics point to a mithraeum existing in the St. Just district. One being a dedication on a gold-plated copper blade, the other being a relief upon which was scultured a serpent; a constellation symbol used by worshippers of Mithra (Pelletier.Ibid).

Mithraism was a hierarchical religion with followers ascending in rank as they advanced spiritually. Hence, the religion paralleled military lives. Worship of Mithra took place in a 'mithraeum', with sedans lining the walls on which participants (average: 30-40) would recline and partake of a communal meal. At one end of the mithraeum was a 'tauroctony'; an alter emblazoned with an image of Mithras killing a bull around which members moved in imitation of the sun and the constellations.

Mithraism is based upon an astronomical observation known as the 'precession of ', whereby constellations are seen to rotate across the sky. This effect is due to earth's tilt and involves a 24,000-year cycle (i.e. 2,000 years per constellation). Apparently, we are now in the ‘Age of Aquarius’. In antiquity, Mithra was believed to be a divinity who rotated the heavens and turned the wheel of constellations. It has been suggested that the myth of Mithra killing the bull represents the end of the ‘Age of Taurus’, and this would date the origin of Mithraism to around 2000 B.C.

Celtic gods in Lugdunam

Two divine beings were accorded particular importance by the Gauls of Lugdunam: Sucellus and the Mother-Goddess. Of Sucellus, numerous stone reliefs, bronze statuettes and medallions have been recovered by archaeologists; many of which now rest in Lyon's Gallo- Roman museum. Apparently, this bearded, mallet-wielding god remained popular in Lugdunam for quite some time. In fact, the archaeologist P. Lambrecht, commenting upon Sucellus’ popularity, once remarked that he was:

'...one of the principle forms under which was manifest the great national Celtic god.'

...which, strangely, seems to equate Sucellus with the universalism of Lug. Indeed, this is the position taken by the St. Romain-en-Gal museum (Vienne’s cross-river neighbour) in stating that Sucellus was a warrior/agricultural celtic god throughout the Roman empire. Elsewhere, it has been suggested that Sucellus was a variant of Taranis, the god of thunder, hybridized with Jupiter and Mars, who were both warrior gods. Yet other archaeologists, who completely reject the idea of a great national god, say that Sucellus shows regional variations resultant of much earlier deity cross-breeding back in Hallstattian days. Apparently the picture is complex.

Two reliefs have been found of ‘The Mother Goddess’ (‘Matrae’ in Gaulois) in which she appeared, in triplicate, holding fruit and 'corns of abundance' (‘cornucopias’). One of these also contained a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes sitting on the middle mother goddess’ knee; which is strongly reminiscent of Virgin Mary imagery. This relief also contains the name of the dedicant: ‘Phlegon’, a local doctor. In addition, a temple was built to ‘The Matrae’ at St. Barthelemy on the Fourviere hill by the dedicant ‘Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus’. Hence, their local importance can be assured (Pelletier. op. cit)

Several statuettes of Epona, riding side-saddle upon her horse, are displayed in the Gallo- Roman museum. As protectress of the cavalry (p.68) that is, perhaps, not too suprising considering the large presence of horse-backed ‘decurions’ in Lugdunam. Nonetheless, traditionally she was a Celtic goddess. She was also yet another cornucopia carrier and thus, in being linked to economic prosperity, her presence in wealth-producing Lugdunam can be well understood.

The fountain of Choulans

A fountain unearthed at Choulans (1967) may shed some light on the question of Lug, for it shows the head of a cyclops and raises interesting, speculative, possibilities. J.J. Hatt, for example, our previously cited Gallic expert, speculted that the fountain (dedicated to Jupiter optimus maximus), symbolically honoured Claude’s victory over the Breton’s. This conclusion was reached by comparing the cyclops imagery with that of Lug defeating the cyclops, ‘’, in Irish mythology (Pelletier. op.cit. p.102).

For sure, it is known that this fountain was presented to Emperor Claude on his return from Britain where he had presided over the Roman victory celebrations in 44 A.D. We saw earlier during an analysis of Celtic languages, the (debated) hypothesis that the originated in Brittany before it crossed to Wales, which occurred as indigenous Celts fled the Romans. Quite possibly this fleeing of Celtic rebels also involved a large concentration of druids, for Carnute (in Brittany) had been the druidic capital of Gaul and the Romans were particular keen to strike at the heart of Celtic beliefs and governance; as any invading force would be.

In fact, the Romans did strike the rebels and druids particularly hard when they met them in their Welsh haven on the Island of Anglesay (A.D. 60): They burnt them alive and demolished their sanctuaries. Those that escaped crossed to Ireland, taking with them their myths and customs. It could thus be surmised that this was the route by which the Lugh myth arrived in Ireland. The implication is that the myth of ‘Lug and the cyclops’ (Balor) was known by Claude and, by extention, the people of Lugdunam. And so, the mason who created the fountain equated Claude with Lug; which is an interesting, politically significant, re-invention of the myth. But then, it is in the nature of myths to have their constituent elements transformed in the manipulation and conjecturings upon reality; as previously discussed (p.19).

Other material artefacts

Of the many Celtic finds uncovered by archaeologists (figurines, coins, weapons, bowls etc.) a few now merit particular attention due to their relevance to the unfolding story of Lug.

1. The Gundestrup Cauldron.

Magic cauldrons that never empty of food have origins in neolithic/bronze age myth. On several occasion they have been found buried with chariots (plus the deceased), suggesting preparations for the road to the afterlife and a symbolic connection with immortality.

The Gundestrup cauldon is a particularly fine example. It was discovered in a bog in Jutland, , in the 19th century and is 60 cms in diameter, 40 cms in depth and is covered in 15 silver plaques; 6 on the inner surface, 8 on the outer surface and 1 on the inside bottom. These plaques are ornately designed, in relief, with images of Celtic gods and Celtic culture. For some, this find was as important as the Rosetta stone to the Egyptologists, whilst others even considered it to be ‘The Holy Grail'!

More conservatively, it is understood to be a peace-keeping gift of friendship, produced by a Thracian artisan and given as a to a Celtic tribal chief living in the Central Danube region where Thracians and Celts were neighbours. For by the fifth century B.C. the Thracians had adsorbed Greek, Scythian and Persian artistic ideas and we well aware of Celtic beliefs and customs. was later taken to Denmark for safe hiding from Roman invaders. (Cunliffe. Op.cit)

Whilst the cauldron is an impressive object in itself, the art work is highly informative and speaks as loud as any literary text. It consolidated prior speculations upon Celtic gods and helped fill in several missing gaps.

Above right is shown one of the interior plates. Generally, the central god is said to be Taranis, the Celtic solar god, surrounded by mythical beasts and the ram-headed snake. Less certain is the character holding the wheel. C.Godineau and P. Verdier (2006) suggest a kneeling Hercules, but for my money the horned-helmetted figure is very suggestive of a flying Hermes. And we should always keep in mind the Hermes-Mercury-Lug connection.

2. The bronze Coligney calender

This was discovered in Bourg-en-Bresse (Ain) in 1897. Most importantly, it shows the Celtic year being divided into lunar months of 29 days each. The months also detailed auspicious and inauspicious days, thus providing essential information for planning routine activities such as planting, harvesting, slaughtering beasts etc.

3. An inscribed lead plate from Chalamiers

This was discovered in Chalamiers (S.W. France) in 1973. The inscription upon the plate is said to be a magical for the of Lug. This notion is based on a final phase which is repeated three times:

'lugdessumiíis lugdessumiíis lugdessumiíis luxe'.

Translation: 'I prepare them for Lug' (x3)

Notice the similarity of the language to Latin. It is, in fact, Gallois and the suggestion is that this pre-battle incantation offered Lug the spirits of the dead in exchange for victory at war. It is one of the very few inscribed references to Lug and shows Lug's role within a military context – Dumézil’s second function.

4. The Satto Vase

Though somewhat confused, the provenance of this vase is probably from a Satto family of potters based in the north-east of Gaul around the 1st century A.D. It now rests in the archaeological museum of Strasbourg.

The motif is Greek and shows the one-eyed Cyclops ('Polypheme') killing one of Ulysses' men with a spear. The event is shown to occur at day-break and two crows, a hare and a monkey sit watching the rising sun.

The tale this motif represents is a scene from Homer's Odyssey whereby Ulysses and his men were trapped in the cyclop’s (Polytheme) cave, but thanks to Ulysses thrusting his spear into the cyclop’s eye they escaped.

The parallel with the Irish myth of Lugh thrusting his spear into Balor's eye (P.54) is unavoidable and further strengthened by the inclusion of the crows and the rising sun. Possibly the theme originated in .

5. The goblet of Lyon

Made of silver, this goblet has two engraved images:

1) A crow releases a money bag which falls towards a figure that some say is a hybrid of Teutates and Mercury. However, the crow, an intermediary between sky and earth, is often associated with Lug and Apollo. 2) Esus (reverse side), accompanied by a stag, is being cured of illness. His doctor is symbolised by a citar and a dog. Coincidentally, Apollo is often pictured with a citar and in other contexts (e.g. Irish) Lug often has a dog for a companion.

The goblet of Lyon is thus, possibly, an archaeological find depicting Lug in a Gallic context. One important example from coins demonstrates well the hybridization of gods. On the reverse side of a coin of Antoine is a winged divinity. His head is haloed (Apollo) and he carries a (Mercury); a sheaf of arrows and club (Hercules), and finally, a shield of Mars. Before him, sitting upon a rock, is a crow with a cornucopia in his hand. The coin was produced at the Lyon mint and the suggestion is that the hybridized image may represent Lug.

Roman gods in Lugdunam

For details of Roman gods see p.124-5. Below is simply listed material evidence of the gods’ existence in Lugdunam (see Pelletier. Op.cit. & Pelletier et al. 1988 for details):

Jupiter – Several dedications and inscriptions. Marble head (below). But no temple remains.

Jupiter. Sara plateau - (perhaps ?)

Gallo-Romain museum. Lyon

Apollo – Altar at Vaise with dedication. 3rd century A.D.dedication at St.Just. Patron of Lugdunam’s thermal baths. Chapel at Choulans dedicated to Apollo, the solar god and warrior.

Found in Choulans.1967

Mercury – Several medallions and bronzes. Four inscriptions. A fine relief showing Mercury beside his mother, , who holds a cornucopia (below). Three sanctuaries dedicated to Mercury at St. Just, Sara, and Choulans. The Goblet of Lyon.

Found at Duchere, Lyon. 1859

Mars - Statue found at Coligney with Gallic calendar (1897). A temple with official head priest (‘Flamine’) – Official patron of ampitheatre - statue Rhône 1859

Diane – statue (1813/1814) Altar in Condate

Mars Neptune Diana

Gallo-Romain museum. Lyon. All Photographed and printed in ‘Histoire et Archaeologie de La France Ancienne’. Copied without permission.

Eygptian gods in Lugdunam

The Egyptian gods of Isis and Serapis were also honoured, though in lesser degrees than the other gallo-Roman gods. Materials remains include an engraved column dedicated to Isis as well as several medallions.

The Christian Martyrs

Christianity was absorbed into Lugdunam's midst with the influx of oriental cultures and was initially freely practised by a small number of believers. Later, however, the tides changed and the Christians were persecuted; largely because they refused to acknowledge the sanctity of the Roman Emperor and Empire. On one particularly black day for Lugdunum (A.D. 177), forty Christians, led by Bishop Ponthius (the first bishop of Lyon), were hounded into 'The Amphitheatre of the Three Gauls' by a violent mob for a 'public interrogation'. Refusing to renounce their beliefs, they were beheaded and thrown to wild beasts. Their remains were burnt and the ashes thrown into the river Saône.

Ampitheatre of the Three Gauls.

To give this horrendous event context, it should be noted that most of the martyred Christians belonged to a sect that practiced 'montanism'; which originated in Asia Minor. ‘Montanism’ was said to be based on the writings of St. Paul, in particular his detailing of the gifts of the 'Holy Spirit'. Similar is today's 'Pentacostalism', otherwise known as 'neo-montanism'. During the first century A.D. this brand of Christianity caused particular consternation amongst religious leaders in Rome. At the same time, the Emperor Marcus Aurelus was keeping a very watchful eye on Gaul's eastern border where where constantly threatening to invade. Times were tense and the montanist movement was seen as a destabilizing effect on internal religio-political harmony. To put it bluntly, it simply wasn't a good time to be different, for internal social cohesion was required. The Christians paid an excessively heavy price for their alternative beliefs.

Memorial plaques to the Christian Martyrs

Martyred Bishop Ponthin was succeeded by Bishop Ireneus who had escaped the persecutions due to being in Rome to discuss the montanist case. Ireneus also began life in Asia Minor, where he had studied under Bishop Polycarpe who apparently was acquainted with the apostles; providing yet another contextual slant. Following the martyrdom of his fellow Christians of Lugdunam, Ireneus later returned and went on to become a leading Christian theologian. In particular, he stood against the churches of Asia Minor by proposing that should always be celebrated on a Sunday: An argument which followed the edicts of the Church of Rome whose sanctity Ireneus supported. He also wrote two major theological works: ‘Demonstration of the Apostalic pretention’ and ‘A Refutation of Gnosticism’, which established his theological credibility and historical reknown. He died in A.D. 202. Legend has it that this too was as a martyr during riots against the growing Christian population. No hard facts exist, however, to support this legend (Pelletier. 1999. p.122). Nevertheless, this was a difficult period for Lugdunum's Christians and really it wasn't until Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity (A.D.312) that anti-Christian sentiments began to subside.

The decline of Lugdunam

Lugdunam’s woes began at the end of the second century and mirrored the woes of the Roman Empire, the principle destabilizing factor being hostile neighbours; in particular, the Germanic tribes. To add salt to the wound, the economy of Gaul suffered partly as a result of the rise of economic fortunes in Britain, and also as several cholera epidemics seriously damaged the health of the nation, killing off Marcus Aurelius in 180 A.D. (Pelletier et al. 1988). However, serious in-fighting too damaged the might of the Roman empire.

Marcus Aurelius was succeeded by his adopted son ‘Commodus’ who did his best to retain peace on the borders (German and Scottish). However, he became mentally unstable, claiming to be a re-incarnation of Hercules, and was assassinated by the pretorian guard in 192 A.D. ‘Pertinax’, the governor of Britain, then had the misfortune of taking his place. Misfortune, for one year later he too was murdered by the pretorian guard who then chose ‘Marcus Didius Julianus’ for Emperor. But he lasted even less time than Pertinax and was killed off after serving only three months. This assassination was carried out by ‘Septimius Severus’ governor of Pannonia (Hungary), ex-governor of Lugdunum, who was immediately proclaimed emperor by his troops. However, the Roman troops in Syria also proclaimed their leader, ‘Pescennius Niger’, as emperor, whilst the troops in Britain proclaimed their latest governor, ‘Claudius Albinus’, as emperor. Obviously, something had to give.

Severus swiftly dealt with Pescennius in 194 A.D. He then offered an olive branch to Albinus in nominating him as deputy emperor. But Albinus didn’t accept and crossed the channel with three Roman legions, heading for Lugdunam where Severus had once been governor, thereby provoking Severus into a fight for the purple robes. At Lugdunam, Albinus was welcomed by the citizens, particularly because he also re-opened the mint and issued coinage on which his head was stamped to symbolise ‘The Genie of Lugdunam’; the provider of wealth and abundance.

However, Severus soon arrived from the east, down the Saône valley, with troops that far outnumbered those of Albinus, and a bloody battle was fought to the north-west of the city, at Tassin, involving 300,000 men. Albinus lost and committed suicide towards the end of the battle. Lugdunam, which had been pro-Albinus, was then plundered and Albinus supporters massacred. Following this defeat, Severus returned to Rome, with Albinus’ head on a pole, to claim the title of emperor. He had structurally destroyed Lugdunam, closed the mint and left it ‘bloodless’ (Pelletier. Ibid). Citizens of Lugdunam living on the Fourviere heights then descended to live close to the Saône, for the acqueducts bringing water had been seriously damaged in the fighting and no community could continue to exist on top without water. In addition, as opportunists plundered the lead-linings, the acqueducts were subsequently put permanently out of action.

The third century saw increased incursions onto Gallic soil from hostile Germanic neighbours in the east. It seems that they had always been there, from the beginning, watching and waiting for their moment to invade. In 259 A.D. they arrived in large numbers, pillaging the Ambares region as they headed towards Lugdunam. On reaching the Saône they turned south, but avoided fortified centres such as Lugdunam, preferring instead to rampage through smaller, less well protected sites. They came again in 264 A.D., penetrating deeper and deeper into Gaul, even reaching the Pyrannees. The next major incursion occurred in 275 A.D., when they destroyed sixty Gallic villages along the Rhône valley (Pelletier. Ibid). Their threat was ever constant.

Then came along Emperor who, at the tail-end of the third century A.D., strove to maintain internal security. Thus he created two armies: One to protect internal Gaul (comitatus) and one to protect the frontier (limitanei). He also completely restructured Gaul by creating two dioceses: The diocese of Gaul and the diocese of Vienne, othewise known as the diocese of Seven Provinces. In reality, this was a north-south division (see below).

Map. 5

Fourth Century Gaul.

(adapted from Pelletier et al. 1988. without permission)

As can be seen, the effect on Lugdunam was to reduce its central importance. From being, ‘The Capital of the Three Gauls’, it became simply a provincial capital. In fact, Treveri in the Belgium I province became the capital of the diocese of Gaul.

Nevertheless, despite Diocletian’s best efforts, incursions from across the Rhine gathered momentum during the fourth century B.C. with cracks opening up all along the frontier. On 24 June 356 A.D. German (Alaman) troops poured in to take control of Autun then moved up to occupy Troyes and the Alsace. Emperor Julian, who had replaced Diocletian, remained in Gaul to offer resistence, but was besieged at Sens whilst ‘barbarians’ headed towards Lugdunam. However, on arrival they were unable to gain access. The siege at Sens then broke and Julian counter-attacked, defeating an army near Strasbourg. A delicate, highly unstable situation then

continued for the next two decades with Julian successfully holding off intermittant invasions. His successor was Emperor Gratien, who too struggled against large scale incursions; particularly in 377-378 A.D. and again in 388 A.D.

Nevertheless, the walls to Gaul finally came tumbling down in 406 A.D. In following André Pelletier’s (1999) example, I quote here from St. Jerome:

‘Innumerable fierce nations became masters of Gaul. All that is comprised beteween the Alps and the Pyrenees, the ocean and the Rhine, has been devastated by the Quadi, the Vandals, the Sarmians, the Alamans, the Gepides, the Herules, the Saxons, the Burgundes, the Germans and, O pain! The Pannonians....all the provinces have been devastated, with the exception of a small number of towns, and those spared by the sword succumb to famine.’

(my italics. Letters, 123,15)

A free-for-all orgy of murder and destruction fell upon Gaul which lasted for decades. Of these invaders, ‘the Burgundes’ soon became the principal occupiers. They first arrived at Lugdunum in 458 A.D., but the threat of Roman troops based at Lugdunum’s garrison encouraged them to retire. However, the Roman Empire was then in serious decline and the Burgundes could not be put off for ever. They returned, took the city and were installed in Lugdunum by 470-474 A.D.

Name changes

It has previously been remarked how the site of Lugdunum was earlier named ‘Condate’ by the Celts and ‘Luogosduonos’ by the Greeks. In fact, under the Romans, three different spellings of Lugdunum were used:

Lugudunon - Lugudunum – Lugdunum

These names were applied from the foundation of the colony under Plancus, to the fall of Gaul under the Burgundes in the 5th-6th century A.D. when the name of the city changed to:

Leuduno

This name was applied until the end of the first millenium. Then three alternative spellings were introduced:

Loudoun – Loudun – Lodon

In turn, these names too evolved, so that by the thirteenth century the city had also been:

Loon – Leon – Lion

In fact, archives from the 14th and 15th century show the city bearing the name Lion. It was then from the early 17th century that the name Lyon was applied; but only rarely. This modern spelling didn’t really come into vogue until the 18th century and, of course, the city today is the city of:

Lyon

(thanks to Mme Dominique Tisserand. Documentalist at the Gallo-Romain museum. Lyon)

Part 3

12. The evidence so far

At this stage in the game perhaps we should review. First, let’s recall that the initial goal of this project was to learn something more about Lug than the simple fact that he was a ‘Celtic God’. To this end, questions were very soon raised about the origins of religious belief, relating them to humankind’s existential ponderings. In fact, following Professor Geertz’s words, such ponderings were then said to be essential for once the cultural snowball had begun to roll humankind became aware of it’s own existence and developed angst; to which malady was prescribed the acquisition of protective ‘anti-angst’ cultural shields, such as customs and ‘religious’ belief systems.

Into this scenario was positioned Lug, along with the thousands of other culturally specific, supernatural or metaphysical pondering varieties designed to deal with questions of existence. To get to grips with such questions, the Indoeuropean chapter tried to examine the etymological origins of Lug in order to discover ‘his’ role in the conceptualizing and organizing of perceptions of existence for speakers of proto-Indoeuropean. Various root ‘meanings’ were thereby proferred. Admittedly, speculation played a role in this, for linguistic findings were creatively blended with recent cognitive archeaological findings. Perhaps, some may say too creatively?

Part two of this work concentrated on the emergence of the Celtic and Roman empires. This was largely an historical account providing textural backgound to the discussion. Of particular relevance was the detailing of Lugdunam’s origins and the examination of Gallo-Roman relations, for in this process the Romans (Ceasar) merged Lug with their own God, Mercury, and Lug faded into obscurity; particularly in Gaul. In fact, as has often been repeated, little material evidence of any Gallic Lug remains to this day.

What does remain is largely circumstantial. We’ve seen an inscribed lead plate; J.J. Hatt’s statues incorporating mixed features of Teutates and Lug; the Choulan fountain; the goblet of Lyon; the Gundestrap cauldron; the Satto vase, and a coin produced at the Lyon mint. Of these, perhaps only the lead plate leaves any definitive record of Lug’s existence, for there his name is written and thus timelessly preserved for posterity. But the plate gives no clue as to Lug’s popularity or distribution. That comes from the unavoidable wealth of Lug-prefixed place names in France, Europe and beyond; which, of course, are also written.

Consider, however, that the above artefacts are all that remain from a larger, undiscovered, perished, or destroyed stock of Lug icons and memorabilia. We must then ask what clues this hypothetical stock would give to explain the manner in which Lug helped organize Celtic perceptions of existence. To which question, Ceasar’s merging of Lug with Mercury again shines some light, as is corroborated by the iconographic evidence on the material remains.

The picture thus given corresponds to the Indoeuropean cosmological three-tiered arrangement of the heavens (skies), the earth and the underworld, whereby Mercury (or Lug) engaged in transcosmological travel. This picture, recall, was also presented through the work of certain cognitive archaeologists who have examined shamanistic voyages, past and present, in order to explain both prehistoric cave art and neolithic architectural structures such as ‘passage graves’. The picture also reflects Dumézil’s tripartite caste/mythology model in which particular gods, such as Mercury and perhaps Lug, possibly played all three roles (priest, warrior and farmer) and were thereby accorded tricephalic representations i.e. three heads or three phaluses. However, the Lug picture in Gaul still remains sketchy. Celtic religious belief systems of antiquity were not recorded in detail, for the Celts were a non-literate culture, and the Romans created no great mythological context for their gods; unlike their predessors, the Greeks.

What we do know, however, is that though the Celts exhibited a certain homogeneity across Europe, as seen through their material remains, they were also highly localized in having a myriad of regionally based gods. Some of the better known ones have been examined. Lug (debateably) provides an exception to the rule by being a Pan-European god. We also know that several localised Roman gods, who were often agricultural or fertility gods at their naissance, grew in stature to become state-gods as the Roman Empire took hold. Their characteristics then closely aped Greek gods whose culture the Romans reverred. Thus it was that Mercury closely mimicked Hermes, of whom we know much.

In this analysis, we also need to take into account the fact that these cultural entities were not isolated units. Rather, with the flow of trade between them, people and their ideas continuously swirled. For example, artistic designs from one end of the continent can be seen in works of art found on the opposite end of the continent. Indeed, this flowing of influences is not limited to ‘the European continent’. Egyptian and Mesopotamian concepts too are involved in any analysis of ancient, European, cultural concepts. All the more understandably then, the difficulties in extracting one particular ‘pure’ thread from the great conceptual jumble that

evolved. One even questions whether that project is possible where no permanent, written record is left to inform us of that singular thread.

However, all is not without hope. To fill in this sketchy picture, we do have mythologies from the various Indoeuropean languages that have survived the passage of time. Again, as discussed in the text, much creative blending occurred between Celtic and Greek myths due to the artistic licence of the monkish scribes of the middle ages. But, concentrating on Lug, it is possible to see the wood for the trees and extract some personal detail.

Part three thus begins with the Lug-based myths of the British Isles, brought here by druidic Bretons escaping the Romans. The Greek pantheon is then explored, with particular regard to the myths that meld with our understanding of Lug. Next, the Roman gods are catalogued as they were for the Romans. Following on, the Celtiberian picture is presented from Spain before the Scandinavian side introduces the saga of ‘Loki’; a cognate of Lug. The Egyptian gods are then touched upon, specifically ‘Thoth’, for the Greeks likened him to Hermes and he has much in common with our increasing understanding of Lug. Finally, as increasingly less plausible or fruitful strands are revealed, we meet the most ancient of all: The Sumerian ‘’. Yes, this may be pushing things just a little too far, but there are valid arguments for his inclusion.

11. Lug of the British Isles

The Irish version.

Background

The Celtic diaspora reached to all corners of Europe, some being beyond the might of the Roman Empire. Such a place was Ireland where, left undisturbed, ‘oral traditions’ survived up to the middle ages whence they became 'written traditions'. Consequently, some ancient tales have endured to modern times.

Many of these tales were recorded by monks in the middle ages, many of whom converted to christianity from ‘paganism’ simply by changing their costumes. This, of course, is reminiscent of Condate’s druids who, with the coming of the Romans, too changed their sacerdotal costumes, adapted to new religious customs and survived. Here, in Ireland, these monks were kept busy whilst spending their lives in damp, candlelit cells. Partly, this was by writing out the gospels in their exquisitely beautiful caligraphic style, and partly by the documenting of Celtic myths, customs and creeds hitherto unrecorded. It is only to be expected that both tasks must have influenced each other to some degree.

Probably, the two most important books bequethed to Irish heritage are the tale of ‘The wooing of by Cu Chulainn' and ‘Leabhar Gabhála Eireann’ (‘The book of invasions’). The first is an ode which tells of tasks set by one young lady ('Emer') for one young man ('Cu Chulainn'). These tasks he was to accomplish in order to gain her hand in marriage. Within the account are listed four seasonal markers by which these Celts divided up their year:

Imbolc (1st Feb) – 'when the summer goes to sleep'

Beltane (1st May) – 'when ewes are milked at 's beginning'.

Bron Trogain (1st Aug) - 'summer's beginning'. (Also: ‘’ or ‘Lamas’).

Samhein ((1st Nov.) - 'earth's sorrowing in autumn'.

These occasions, intrinsic to agricultural life and marked by 'fire festivals', were widespread across the Celtic world as yearly markers of time. The recording of this myth was thus of utmost importance in conserving historical, socio-religious knowledge of Celtic, pastoral life.

The second, ‘Leabhar Gabhála Eireann’, is a work that blends myth and history (more of the former than the latter) in recounting successive invasons of Ireland. It is from this work that we can learn much about Lugh. In brief, these invasions are as follows:

First invasion: All that is known is that these peoples died in the biblical deluge.

Second invasions: This came about 268 yrs later in which 48 men and women arrived in Ireland led by ‘Parthòlon’. They settled, cleared woodlands, formed lakes and successfully fought and defeated The Formorians, semi-divine demons who preceded gods. They controlled the powers of the land, creating fertility or famine at whim and often they are pictured with body of man and the head of goat; or with one eye, one arm or one foot. Three centuries after Parthòlon and his followers arrived their population had grown to 5,000 people. However, an epidemic arrived and decimated them all; though the knowledge of beer and gold-making, cattle farming, law and religious ritual somehow remained.

Third invasion: Thirty years later ‘the people of ’ arrived. They too engaged upon woodland clearences and the creation of lakes. However, a terrible epidemic once again appeared. This time, though not wiped out, they were greatly weakened and in consequence became vassals of The Formorians. At a later point in time these people fought back against the , but were unsuccessful and fled the country.

Fourth invasion: Three warlike, aristocratic peoples next arrived. Namely: The , The Fir Gaileoin, and The Fir Domnann. Possibly these were Celts, for these names have been equated with The Belges, The Gauloise and The Domnaninn. On arrival, these people continued with previously begun woodland clearence to create agricultural land. However, they were eventually dispossessed of this land by the Tuatha Dé Danaan.

Fifth invasion: The Tuatha Dé Danaan was a mythical pantheon of gods headed by the goddess ‘Danu’ and a great god, ‘’. Other gods included: Goighniu (divine smith and brewer), Luchta (wheelwright), Nuada (the king), (metalworker), Oghma (warrior & inventor of writing), Dian Cécht (the ‘leech’/medicine man) and Oenghus (a ‘handsome young god’ of disputed identity. Hutton. P.151). The Tuatha De Danaan tried,

unsuccessfully, to set up an alliance with The Formorians. The result was conflict (see following myth). Battles followed which were brought to an end by the arrival of ‘Lugh’ who joined the Tuatha de Danaan, then defeated the Formorians and ruled Ireland for forty years.

Sixth Invasion: The were the final group to arrive and thus became the ancestors of today’s Irish.

Historical Notes on the 'Tuatha de Danaan'

The term 'Tuatha de Danaan' has its roots in Indoeuropean culture, as can be seen by the fact that a number of European rivers have been named after its female figurehead, ‘Danu’. For example, the Danube, Dnieper and Don. In Lyon, the river ‘Rhône’ is derived from ‘Rho’ [river] + [Dha] ‘nu’.

The term 'Danu’ signifies the mother goddess of the 'Danaans', and this 'Danu' (or 'Dana') was worshipped across the Celtic world in being particularly associated with water. Furthermore, there is the Proto-celtic term 'danoa', which signifies: 'giving, bountiful, flow'. Clearly, the irrigating, fertilizing power of water and rivers was honoured through the worship of Danu.

Similarly, in Hindu religion we find the water demoness: 'Danavas'. A proto-Indoeuropean link is clearly suggested, confirming the antiquity of 'Danae'.

In Greek, the name 'Danaans' was once used as an alternative for the 'Achaeans'. These were the Greek forces who fought the Trojans at Troy. In fact, the Danaans slightly preceed the Achaeans for they were the first tribe to dominate the Peloponnese. The Achaeans, based around the Peloponneses capital of Mycenae, were actually an assembly of Danaans and 'Aeolians' and under the leadership of 'Agamemnon' they jointly controlled Greek territory. The Achaeans were thus part of the Mycenaean civilization (circa. 1600 B.C.), which had roots back to the Hellenic immigration from the Balkan area (circa. 3rd Millennium B.C.).

It is quite probable that the Irish monks who transcibed the ‘Leabhar Gabhála Eireann’ infused Greco- into the tales. This would provide the simplest explanation of why the term 'Danaan' is applied to both Irish and Greek mythology. It would also explain many other corolleries between the Greek and Irish tales, not least the Olympian nature of the Tuatha dé Danaan.

Early Irish culture held similarities with others cultures contained within the Atlantic zone i.e Iberian, Breton, Welsh and Hebridean. Later, as the Roman campaigned across Gaul, many druids and rebels from Breton crossed to Britain to escape and establish a stronghold in Anglesay, Wales. This encampment, however, was short-lived for the Celts were soundly beaten there by the Romans in A.D. 60. Of the few who survived, some escaped to Ireland taking their culture and mythology with them.

Greco-Roman mythology arrived in Ireland with the coming of Christianity, imported by St. Patrick, who became the patron saint of Ireland. St. Patrick actually grew up in Scotland, but at the age of 16, in the 5th century, he was captured by a group of Irish marauders and sold into slavery. After six years, he managed to escape and fled to France. He arrived at a monastery in Auxerre where he began religious training and during this time he discovered that his 'calling' in life was to convert 'pagans' to Christianity. Hence, on finishing his training, he returned to Ireland and dedicated his life to this goal

St. Patrick opted to incorporate such traditional customs into his ministry rather than eradicate them. Thus he used bonfires to celebrate Easter and merged the Christian cross with a Celtic solar symbol thereby creating a 'Celtic cross'. Whether such examples show a ' of pagan customs' or a 'paganization of Christian customs' is another polemic for academics to chew over.

The following myth tells of Lugh’s incorporation into the 'Tuatha de Danaan' and recounts how he became High King of Ireland.

The Irish myth of Lugh

A long time ago, back in the mists of time when Ireland was inhabited by both gods and men, Nuada, High King of the Tuatha dé Danaan, set out to conquer Ireland from the Fir Bolg. He succeeded, but during the battle he lost an arm and was considered unable to retain his royal title. Consequently, kingship passed over to ‘’.

Bres was half-Formorii/half-Danaan. His father, Prince , had been killed fighting for the Fir Bolg. Bres was chosen, by the Tuatha de Danaan, to be king in order to assure a political alliance between them and the Formorii. But Bres became a bad ruler. Whilst the land suffered from famine he demanded exorbitant taxes from the Tuatha de Danaan, reducing them to servants. With Nuada weakened, there was little they could do about it.

Then Lugh arrived in town and headed straight for the court of King Nuada seeking to join the Tuatha dé Danaan. At the court, the doorkeeper would not let him in unless he had a unique skill to offer. Lugh listed his skills, one-by-one, but was consistently informed that there was already a member there who had that skill. Finally, Lugh asked the doorkeeper if there was anyone who had all the skills combined. The doorkeeper admitted there wasn’t and so Lugh gained admittance.

Lugh soon gained command of the court. Noticing how they were oppressed by the Fomorii he decided to lead the Tuatha dé Danaan into battle against them. The battle was a success and the Tuatha dé Danaan emerged victorious. However, during the battle, Nuada was killed by Balor; a terrifying giant with a single eye that killed all who looked at it.

After killing Nuada with his glare, Balor was attacked and killed by Lugh, who thrust his spear into his eye. The battle was thence concluded. Bres begged for his life and Lugh granted him mercy, on the promise that he teach the Tuatha dé Danaan the skills of agriculture and animal husbandry.

Lug, the hero, went on to become High King of Ireland. He ruled for 40 years.

Biographical background to Irish Lugh

The myth details the conflict between Tuatha dé Danaan and the Formorii. The Fir Bolg, inhabitants of Ireland who arrived on an earlier wave of invasions, play a smaller role.

Both Lugh and Brés were part Tuatha dé Danaan/part Formorii. Brés' patrilineal line was Formorii and Lugh's patrilineal line was with the Tuatha dé Dannan (fig.24). Brés' Formorii father, Crom Dubh ('The bent black one'), was known as 'the god of the land'. Brés inherited his father’s power and used it to cast famine upon the land. He was supported by Balor, Lug's maternal grandfather and a Formorii giant, whose terrifying eye was the like the summer sun and could burn down upon the crops to create famine and drought.

Lugh had two twin brothers and before they were all born Balor believed that a grandson would one day kill him. Consequently, he had his daughter (Ethlinn) imprisoned in a tower so

that she couldn't conceive. However, Dian Cécht found a way to get inside and Ethlinn became pregnant. Ethlinn gave birth to the triplets and Balor had them all thrown into the sea. However, the sea god ‘Manannan’ came to their rescue and saved Lugh. His brothers became seals.

Lugh’s father, Dian Cécht, was a medicine man and he gave Nuada a silver arm with which he could regain the throne. However, for helping Nuada regain his power, he was killed by the sons of , the god of thunder. Lugh vowed to avenge the death of his father. As commander of the Tuatha dé Danaan's army he sent Tuireann’s sons on a series of quests to bring certain artefacts, with which he used in the battle against the Fomorii.

Fig.27

Tuatha dé Danaan Formorii Fir Bolg

(mother) Crom Dubh (father)

Brés (mac Elathan)

Dian Cécht Balor (Béimeann)

Cian (father) Ethlinn (mother)

Lugh Foster mother = 'Tailltu'

Foster father = 'Goibhnio'

Lugh thus vanquished the Formorii by casting his spear into Balor's eye. As a result, the summer season ended and the spirits of the land were defeated. Thus it was that the ripened crops could be taken from the land. However, to see the crops taken from them saddened these land-spirits and so the month of August became known as the month of sorrow ('Bron Trogain'). On the other hand, a harvest festival was celebrated, every August 1st , to celebrate Lugh's triumph over the land spirits so that nourishment was gained for humanity. This is the festival of ‘Lughnasadh’.

An agricultural interpretation to this myth is apparent. Lugh brought an end to Ireland's famine by combating natural forces and Bres, in defeat, was made to part with his agricultural and animal husbandry know-how. Thus, Lugh assisted the cultural development of the by winning the battle over the land and the seasons. He was able to achieve this by being part Formorii and part Danaan. Structurally, Lugh transgressed boundaries between gods, beasts and men and he used this ability to restore order from chaos. He brought knowledge. He was a civiliser.

With regard to the Dumézil hypothesis remark the roles played by Lugh: Sovereign, in ruling for forty years. Warrior, in fighting and defeating Balor and the Formorii. Producer, in bringing fertility to the land.

The Welsh version

Background

Questions about the Welsh version’s ‘Celtic’ authenticity are similar to those encountered with the Irish version, hence the notion that it provides a ‘window on the iron age’ is similarly difficult to maintain. The reason being, to re-iterate, is that the medieval monks who first documented such tales were largely influenced by both Greco-Roman mythology and Christian scriptures. Furthermore, as previously mentioned under ‘two cautionary notes’ (p. 59), there is the question of the ‘invention of tradition’; a process frequently involved in the creation of national identities in which the quest for primary sources often leaves historians struggling to separate out the chaff from the grain.

This second factor can be observed with particular reference to the Canu Taliesan (song of Taliesan), one of the most important historical documents left to Welsh heritage. The Canu Talisan, compiled sometime around 1275, contains fifty-eight poems which deal in fantasy, mystery and the supernatural. Yet, in reality, the literary sources for this work came from Irish, Greek and Roman texts; the scriptures, and texts of the written between 900 and 1080 A.D. The poems were a collective work produced by a literary sect known as ‘’, whose underlying agenda was to revive a sentiment of national identity following the Norman conquest. (Hutton. 1997).

On the other hand, it should also be recalled that that Celts who fled Brittany with the arrival of the Romans settled for a while on Anglesay. There, they were later decimated when the Romans conquered Britain, although some managed to flee to Ireland with their myths and religious customs. Some inklings of early Celtic cultural provenance are thus known and recorded. For sure, layers of other later cultural influences disguise Celtic myths underneath, but they may well be - underneath.

The tale of Lleu Gyffes survives to this day from a collection of Welsh tales known as ‘The Mabinogen’. This collection also has a dubious provenance. It was first put together in the nineteenth century by one ‘Lady Charlotte Guest’. But it was then pointed out that many of the tales within were of international origin (including India, China and Egypt) before being blended with British and Irish myths. The work is now dated to the twelth century A.D.; not to antiquity as was once believed. Perhaps this should have been evident, for the tales deal with

heros (not deities), who ate banquets in great halls and fought with Middle age (not iron age) swords.

The Mabinogen consists of a cycle of four tales, sometimes termed ‘branches’. The tale of Lleu Llan Gyffes occurs in the fourth branch which deals specifically with the ‘Plant Don’. That is, ‘TheChildren of the Don’; the Welsh equivalent of the Irish, ‘Tuatha dé Danaan’.

The Welsh myth of Lleu Llan Gryffes

The Plant Don, who ruled over Gwynnedd (North Wales) were once at war with the people of Dyfed (South Wales). The cause of the dispute was some ‘otherworld’ pigs. Towards the end of the war, ’Math’, the king of the Plant Don, lost the virgin mistress in whose lap his feet should be held. Hence, Gwyndion his nephew (sister’s son) offered him his sister (Math’s sister’s daughter), , as a replacement.

However, before accepting Gwyndion’s offer, Math first tested Arianrhod’s virginity with his magic . The result was that Arianrhod gave birth to twin boys. However, whilst one son was ‘fully-formed’, the other was ‘unformed’. On beng born, the fully-formed son, Dylan, immediately dived into the sea and swam away. The unformed son on the other hand, simply refered to as ‘pethan’ (‘little thing’), was less fortunate. He was immediately taken up by and locked in a chest.

Many months passed until the chest was finally opened and a now healthy baby boy emerged. However, Arianrhod despised this baby and placed a threefold curse upon him. The first curse was that he would have no name, unless she herself was to name him. The second curse was that he would never bear arms, unless she herself was to arm him. The third curse was that he would never take a wife from any human race.

Gwyndion, though, was smart and soon found ways to break these three curses. For the first curse he disguised himself and the child as shoemakers. Arionrhod then visited them to have new shoes fitted and whilst she was at their workshop the child saw a wren in the yard. Arionrhod watched as he placed a stone in his sling, swung the sling, fired the stone and struck the leg of the wren. Impressed by his skill and accuracy, Arianrhod then announced:

‘The little one has done it with a sure hand’.

(In Welsh, ‘little one with a sure hand’ is translated as ‘Lleu Llan Gryffes’. Arianrhod had thus broken her own curse and named the child).

In similar fashion, Gwyndion, whilst maintaining their disguise, conjured up an army to surround them. Arionrhod had no choice but to arm them all, including the child, for their defense. Thus was the second curse broken. Finally, Gwyndion created a wife for Lleu Llan Gryffes out of flowers to break the third curse. Consequently, this wife became the ‘Flower Maiden’ traditionally honoured in May Day rituals.

*******************************************************************

The following points are of particular significance:

Fig. 28

Welsh myth of Lleu Llan Gryffes Irish myth of Lugh:

1) Sibling rivalry between Gwyndion and Arionrhod Family ties linked Lugh, Brés and Balor Conflict between Lugh and Brés

Math Sister

(King of Plant Don)

Gwyndion Arianrhod

Dylan Pethan

2) Dylan and Pethan were twins Lugh was one of a triplet.

3) Dylan was a healthy baby and swam away. Lugh’s brothers swam away

4) Pethan was ill-formed and locked Lugh’s mother Ethlinn in a chest by Gwyndion. was locked in a tower

5) After many months, the chest was opened x and Pethan emerged healthy.

6) Arionrhod cursed Pethan. Brés cursed the land

7) Gwydion took Pethan and disguised himself as a shoemaker. x

8) Arionrhod’s curse was broken Brés’ curse was broken by by Pethan’s skill in killing a wren. Lugh’s skill in killing Balor.

9) In breaking the curse, Pethan was named Lleu Llan Gryffes. X

10) Lleu Llan Gryffes marries wife created by Arionrhod, x his mother and adversary. ______

Evidently, similarities exist, even if the story-line is very different. The most important point to bear in mind is that both Pethan and Lugh killed adversaries by using their skills and breaking curses. Lug killed Balor and Pethan killed the wren. Symbolically, the wren represents a king (*see Scottish section).

On the understanding that whoever kills the king, becomes the king, two Dumézilian functions are fulfilled. Pethan, the cobbler’s son was involved in productivity by making shoes. In killing the wren, the act of a warrior, he became a sovereign. Just the function of priest is missing.

The Scottish version

Background

Early Scottish literary sources are limited to king lists and chronicles. The Scots actually originated in , before crossing the and settling in . However, as a result of Viking invasions on the North Western coast, they were forced inland where they came up against the earlier established .

The Picts too originated in Ireland, but had arrived in Scotland far earlier; the seventh century B.C. Much of their early history is lost, although various fanciful theories have been proposed. Various Victorian academics (e.g. Bachofen) liked to imagine the Picts as pre-Iron age remnants with matrilineal based kinship systems. Nowadays, the Picts are considered simply as other Celtic peoples.

Pictish king lists name a legendary ancestory as ‘Cruithne’ who divided up the kingdom amoungst seven sons from whom are derived the seven Scottish provinces. However, it is only with King Drust (423-53 A.D.) that more definite details begin to emerge. This is around the time when the Picts and the Scots first clashed. Battles between them then continued up to 850 A.D. when the Picts were finally beaten by Kenneth (MacAlpin) 1st,, who subsequently became the first overall king of Scotland.

Archeological records of Scotland, however, do stretch back several millenia into the pre-Celt era. Indeed, the site of Maes Howe (C. 3000 B.C.) in the Orkneys provides one of the finest examples of Iron Age passage graves which are similar to the reknowned Newgrange and passage graves in Ireland. It is thought that Iron Age trade linked the two sites and that they were possibly, in turn, influenced by earlier Spanish and Portugues passage graves. The Atlantic Zone, recall, entailed a degree of homogeneity in material culture and beliefs.

A second linking factor are the decorated, carved stone pillars found at both sites. Irish examples show spiral or foliate motifs; such as is often found on Celtic metalwork. ‘Pictish’ examples, which often topped funeral mounds, are similar, but also involved images of animals and humans. Whilst religious belief systems may be undiscernible from such scant detail one example, in Angus, does show the sacrifice of a bull (Hutton. 1996), suggestive of druidic practices.

Christianity arrived in Scotland with the Irish missionary, St. (A.D. 521-597). St. Columba had previously established two monasteries in Ireland before setting one up on the island of , on the west coast of Scotland, in A.D. 563. He then spent the remaining thirty years of his life evangelising throughout Pict, Hebridean and Orkney Isle territory.

It thus appears that the Scottish literary/mythological record is far thinner on the ground than the Irish - understanderbly so, since the Irish-Scots overpowered the Picts before their mythological record was recorded - and then Christianity arrived. There is the record, however, in Adomnán’s Life of Columba (see Hutton. 1996. p.171), of ‘magi’ advising Pictish kings, with the inference that these ‘magi’ were Druids. Indeed, in early Druids were also depicted as giving council to king. Despite such meagre literary record, then, the following myth has survived:

The Myth of ‘Cath nan Eun’ (The battle of the birds)

There was once a farmer who struggled hard to protect his crops from beasts of the land who contrived to steal them. A wren, observing the farmer’s plight, offered to assist him. However, the wren was immediately challenged by a mouse who wanted the farmer’s crops for himself and his kind.

Consequently, the wren assembled an army of all the birds in the sky, whilst the mouse assembled an army of rodents and all the beasts that crept and crawled, and a great battle was fought.

The king’s son, Mac Righ Cathair, soon heard about this battle and decided to attend. However, when he arrived nearly all the birds and all the beast had died in combat. In fact, only two were left to finish the fight: A raven and a serpent.

Mac Righ Cathair decided to help the raven and the battle was finally won for the birds. The raven then turned into a handsome young man and presented Mac Rig Cathair with a bag full of magical treasures with which he could defeat a local giant and marry his daughter.

______

*Since the wren plays such a pivotal role in both this and the Welsh tale its importance should be explained. Firstly, in Irish Gaelic, the wren is termed ‘Drui-en’ i.e. Druid bird. It was known for its cunning and symbolized wisdom and divinity. It was also considered by all

Indoeuropean peoples to be sacred; a king of birds. For the Celts the wren was associated with Taranis.

The wren is the smallest bird. But then, mythologically, cunning was generally valued greater than was size. A further, Cross-European aspect of the wren is that it was often ritually hunted and killed. Sir James Frazer, in ‘The Golden Bough’ (1922) noted various examples of this custom which frequently occured around Christmas day. In Carcasonne (France) the tradition fell every first Sunday of December when young people would go and beat the bushes in order to hunt the wren. The first person to strike one down was then proclaimed king. The underlying theme, so Frazer declared, was that he who kills the king, gains kingly power and becomes king. Notice too how ‘wren’ is termed in various other European language: Latin - Regulus; French-Reytelet; Welsh - Bren; Teutonic-Koning Vogel (king-bird); Dutch-Konije (little king). The link between wren and king is evidently very old; certainly Indoeuropean.

As in the Irish myth, a battle takes place to combat the forces of the land. In the Irish myth this was the Formorii. In the Scottish myth it was an army of rodents and beasts that crept and crawled. This battle was won for the birds when Mac Righ Cathair helped the raven kill the snake. He then went on to beat a local giant and marry his daughter.

With regard to Dumézil’s functions, we certainly have the role of sovereignity with the tale of the wren and the king’s son, ‘Mac Righ Cathair’. And since the sovereign wren battled against the beasts of the land to protect the farmers produce, both warrior and producer roles are also incorporated into the tale. Just the role of priest is missing to fulfil all three Dumézil functions: Priest, warrior, producer.

The Cornish Version

Background

Passage graves, dolmans, and henge monuments had appeared in the South-West of by around 3000 B.C. Stone circles arrived between 3000-2200 B.C. In fact, most prehistoric, megalithic sites were situated either in Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Cumbria or the West of Scotland. This should be no surprise considering the prehistoric Atlantic trade routes from Spain to Scotland.

Flint mines were the important prehistoric industry of Britain, particulary with regard to the manufacturing of stone axes. The largest site was in Norfolk (dated: 2600 B.C.) with 40 shafts up to 12 metres deep. This industry reached its production peak around 2500 B.C., but then began to tail off as the Bronze Age kicked in c. 1900 B.C.

Tin from Cornish mines then became the highly sought after commodity, from 2150B.C. onwards, with the result that merchants arrived on Cornish shores from far flung places. Whilst Copper was also mined in Ireland, Strathclyde and North Wales, Cornwall and Devon remained the industrial hub, reportedly having a booming market around 1600 B.C. In fact, it remained market leader up to 300 B.C., supplying copper through Gaul (via The Loire, Rhone and Gironde) to the continent and Mediterranean (Chronicle of Britain.1992).

Bronze Age settlements cropped up across the Cornish countryside as additional tin sources were located. However, by 1000-700 B.C., due to a mix of bad weather and bad farming, these settlements became useless, boggy, moorland sites and hence, uninhabitable. The Iron Age saw the arrival in Cornwall of the ‘fogous’. These were undergound defence chambers though which one crawled on hands and knees to store food. Similar are the Irish ‘souterrains’ and the Scottish ‘Earth houses’. These are all dated 200 B.C.–200 A.D.

Holy Wells are in evidence throughout the West of Britain, as they are thoughout Europe. Part of the reason for such ‘mystical’ veneration is due to spring water bubbling up from hidden, underground (i.e. autochthonic) sources. Another suggestion considers the bad climatic conditions of the seventh and eighth century B.C. when appeasement offerings were flung into the rising waters. Neverthelss, the significance the ‘ancients’ gave to water has been commented on several times previously in this text.

Folklore records Cornish custom reaching back to 4000 B.C. To be precise, this is the date given for the ‘hobby horse’ tradition enacted in ‘Padstow’ every May Day, whereby two hobby horses pass through the streets to capture young maidens under their capes. Hutton (1996) however, remains cynical to such dating, remarking that the earliest recorded date for this tradition was 1803.

Cornwall was Christianized in the 5th century and the Cornish language survived until the 18th Century. Earlier, during the 6th century, Saxons had harried many Cornish dwellers over the coast to Brittany where they introduced their variant Celtic dialect to the indigenous Bretons. Thus today, in Brittany, different regional dialects reflect this Cornish linguistic influx. In Cornwall, the last monoglot speaker of native Cornish was Chester Marchant, who died in 1676. The last polyglot speaker was Dolly Pentreath. She died in 1777.

Tin mining slumped during the 17th century. In 1698 it was recorded that miners were at starvation level receiving just £10 per year. Then serious riots broke out in 1727 and 1773 due to high rises in grain prices amid poor returns for the tin. But the industry struggled on, despite increasing closures, for the next two hundred years. The last tin mine, which had been kept alive at huge cost, finally closed in 1998 (Chronicle of Britain.1992).

Cornwall is very rich in myth and legend. The tale that concerns us here is that of ‘Jack the Tinkard’. The reason is that it has points in common with the Irish, Welsh and Scottish tales so far considered.

The myth of ‘Jack the Tinkard’ There was once a big, strong man named Tom, who took a cart load of beer to the market in St. Ives. However, on route Tom found the road diverted around a giant’s castle which did not please him for the road was the King’s highway and should have led directly to St. Ives. So he decided to drive his cart straight through the castle grounds.

The giant heard Tom coming and attacked him with a branch of an elm tree. Tom, however, simply turned over his cart and, from its wheel and axle, quickly fashioned himself a sword. Tom fought the giant fairly and won. As a result, the giant was killed and Tom gained his land, sheep, cows and wife, Jane.

Once Tom had settled into the castle, he set about heightening the hedges and strengthening the gates so that none other could pass through. Then along came ‘Jack the Tinkard’ who challenged Tom to a fight in order open up the route. Jack fought with a stick of blackthorn and wore a protective suit made of bull’s hide that was as hard as iron. They fought long and hard until, finally, Tom was defeated by Jack’s skill and cunning. But they became friends and Jack proceeded to teach Tom his moves for unlike Tom, who was rather slow-witted, Jack was in fact, a skilful ‘master-of-all-arts’.

Jack stayed at the castle with Tom, Jane and their children, and taught Tom many things. For example, he showed him how to skin a calf to make a one piece-suit; how to use a bow and arrow; how to make beer; how to grow herbs, and he also taught him about lands beyond the West Country. Perhaps most importantly, however, Jack realised the castle was sitting on a great wealth of tin ore and showed Tom how to extract it and prepare it for market. Consequently, they all became very rich.

Eventually, Jack wished to marry Tom’s daughter. Tom consented on condition that Jack rid ‘Morva’, a town where his cousins lived, of a savage giant. Jack agreed and again showed his cunning by enticing the giant to charge at him whereby he fell into a deep pit. The townspeople then threw heavy rocks onto the giant and killed him. And so, the wedding went ahead amid great rejoicing with dancing and wrestling and quoit throwing. Thus began the origin of the annual Morva fair. ______The significant points to the tale are:

1) Tom kills giant and marries giant’s wife.

2) Jack beats Tom in a fight through cunning.

3) Jack is a ‘master-of-all-arts’. (list of particular skills supplied in tale).

4) Jack kills local giant.

Giants obviously play quite a prominent role in this myth. In fact, giants played leading roles in several Indoeuropean mythologies, not just Celtic. And within these myths giants are portrayed as pre-dating all other living beings, even the gods. Indeed, they are associated with

the savage, uncivilized ‘other’. Combatting giants thus represents combatting the wild forces of nature in order to invoke culture.

For example: A race of giants, ‘born from the blood of a mutilated Uranus’, were vanquished in Greek mythology by Hercules. This mortal hero also killed the giant called ‘Meduse’, a one- eyed Cyclops whose look turned people to stone. Like the giants, the Cyclops were also children of Uranus. Elsewhere, this Meduse was killed by Perseus who cut off his head. But even then, his look still turned people to stone (Graves. 1959). Hercules and Perseus were both involved in combatting the wild forces of nature.

In Teutonic mythology, giants were in continual conflict with gods and the belief was that they would eventually win; an event signalling the collapse of the universe. Nevertheless, Thor (thunder god) was a powerful adversary and no giant ever succeeded in defeating him. The threat of the savage vanquishing the civilised was ever present though, due to the harsh, northern climatic conditions.

Beating nature’s wild forces and keeping them at bay involves skill. Ask any gardener. This too is an important facet of the ‘Jack the Tinkard’ myth and also plays a part in the other British myths detailed. This all gives some help in find common mythological denominators:

Concerning Dumézil’s functions: The giant’s castle stood on the king’s highway (sovereignity); Tom defeated the giant and then Jack defeated Tom (warrior), Jack was a skilled craftsman/producer (productivity). Perhaps not so convincing? The role of priest is missing.

Putting the four British myths together we have:

Fig. 29

Irish Welsh Llan Lleu Gryffes kills wren (=king) Lugh battles against ogre ‘Balor’ Lugh battles against forces of the land Llan Leu Gryffes kills with skill Lugh wins battle by cunning Llan Lleu Gryffes marries Harvest enabled, agriculture introduced His wife created by his adversary (his mother-Arionrhod)

Lug

Cornish Scottish Tom kills giant Mac Righ Cathair battles forces of land Jack defeats Tom through cunning Mac Righ Cathair marries giant’s daughter Jack is ‘master-of-arts’ Jack kills giant and marries Tom’s daughter

All are fertility myths: The central characters promote fertility through defeating adversaries - with skill and cunning. In other words, they represent Dumézil’s third function of productivity. Furthermore, all myths do involve fights and warriors, and to some extent, sovereignity is disputed within each myth. This all gives us a very generalised notion of Lug, even if Dumézil’s priestly function is not so evident.

12. Greek Lug

Background

Parallels between Celtic and Greek mythology abound. This should not surprise us considering the two cultures arose in parallel from the same Indo-European stock; that medieval scribes often blended the two together, and that contact existed between them since their origins, as can be seen from examining their art and architecture.

Of course, Greek civilization really began with the Minoan culture on the Island of Crete. The island received cultural influence from Egypt in the 3rd millenium B.C. which then spread onto the Greek mainland. However, growth was stiffled due to invasions from Anatolia and the next occassion when Cretan culture crept out from its island confine was around the 16th centure B.C. This time Cretan colonies were established on the island of Rhodes; at Miletus (Asia Minor), and at Mycaenae on the Greek mainland. The Minoan culture was finally destroyed around 1450 BC, apparently by Dorian invaders from the North, and from this time on the Mycaenae culture grew in central importance as ‘The Mycaenae Empire’, which encompassed Crete, the mainland, and Miletus. The empire lasted for a couple of centuries until ‘barbarian invaders’ once again appeared (circa. 1200 B.C.) destroying the Mycaenae palaces and citadels. This, note, was the era of Indo-European expansion, when they also swept into Anatolia, took control of Troy, and destroyed the Hittite Empire.

Greek colonialism took off around the 8th century B.C. Primarily, this was due to population growth and the need for fertile land. Consequently, Greek colonies became founded around the Black Sea (including Byzantium) and Tyrrhennian Sea, including Pithecusae, in the bay of Naples, and Syraccuse, in Sicily (723 B.C.). This era is known as ‘Magna Gracia’, a term defining Greek imperial designs as they stretched out west along coastal Mediterrannean waters. The era kick-started Etruscan (north-west Italian) culture into becoming a major force in the area.

Contemporaneously, the other major Mediterrannean player was the Phoenicians, those famed sea-travellers who largely skirted the eastern areas of the Mediterrannean but also ventured far west. Records have it that they set up camp at Carthage (Tunisia, N.Africa) around 650 B.C. and reached Tartessos (Spain) in 630 B.C. where they discovered untapped mineral wealth.

Greek trade too stretched far. Wine carrying amphora vases from the 6th century B.C. have been unearthed not only in Greek colonies along the Mediterrannean coast, but also far further inland. The port of Massalie, the best example, was a particularly strong trading-base for accessing the hinterland since the river Rhône stretched deep into central France and thence to Geneva, on the shores of Lac Leman. Hallstatt and Greek cultures thus merged at an early date in becoming ‘trading partners’; the Greeks suppyling the Hallstatt elite with goods to display and define their aristocratic positions (Cunliffe. 1997).

Back at the Mediterrannean, the Greeks had many fights on their hands as they rose to fame. First, this was against the Etruscans who had been stimulated into cultural awakening by the Greeks, but then joined forces with the Phoenician Carthaginians to attack the Greeks for control of Mediterrannean waters (‘The battle of the Sardinian Sea’. 540 B.C.). They lost, but were not defeated, and it wasn’t until 474 B.C. that the Etruscan fleet was finally scuppered and Etruscan expansionist dreams, in a southern direction, came to an end. In fact, they then pushed north, up the Po valley, into northern Italy. Next, the Greeks had the Persian Empire in the east to contend with; both sides seeking control of the Aegean Sea. Consequently, ‘The Persian Wars’ lasted from 490-479 B.C. After that conflict had simmered down, internal war erupted as Spartans battled against Athenians. The Spartans had maintained a monarchical system of governance and the Athenians had developed democracy. Something had to give as both sides vied for overall control. The ensuing ‘Peleponnesian Wars’ lasted twenty-seven years (431-404 B.C.) with the Corinthians joining in for good measure. Of course, war was never far from the Greek agenda, any nation struggling to establish an empire does so through war. So it was that ‘Alexandra the Great’ came on the scene; crossed into Asia in 334 B.C., and pushed the bounds of the Hellenic world far east in reaching Kashmir and the Indus Valley. Oriental influences then had a free flow into Greece and the Mediterrannean world.

Throughout this time a political dualism existed in Greece between panhellenism and the individual city-state (‘polis’), for whilst such activities as the Olympic games expressed unity, geographic factors maintained divisions. Art, sculpture, poetry, iron-working, legal systems and religion, however, helped to establish the consciousness of a common culture.

Early Aegean religion was based on ‘fetishism’ (e.g. the worship of stones, trees and weapons) and ‘animism’ (the worship of animals, including their anthropomorphism). This second element remained strong in the development of Greek mythology. The first written record of a Greek pantheon of gods comes from Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey, which detailed

their attributes and legends in order to promote the ideals of civilised aristocracy and ‘kept at bay the darker and more savage elements in popular religion’ (Russel. 1961. p.31). However, though nowadays acknowledged as the work of a series of poets (750-550 B.C.) little was written about these god’s origins. This task fell to Hesiod. (For earlier discussion on this subject see p.65)

Hesiod’s poem ‘Theogony’ (7th century B.C.) provided the mythological classification of the Greek gods, along with stories of their relationships and adventures as well and a mythological explanation for the cosmological formation of the universe. His other major work, ‘Works and Days’, was an historical mythology which explored the five stages of human existence (The Golden Age, The Silver Age, The Bronze Age, The Heroic Age and The Iron Age), whilst also documenting ancient Greek society and belief systems. A possible corollary may be suggested here with the ‘six waves of invasions’ recounted in the Irish work ‘Leabhar Gabhála Eireann’ (p.96).

Orpic belief systems, of which Pythagoras was an exponent (as previously mentioned), were asiatic in origin. Being not specifically Greek, these were not so popular, even though Pythagoras himself contributed much to Greek philosophy.

A full account of Greek mythology can be found elsewhere. However, here I first briefly offer Hesiod’s mythological origin of the universe to show how the gods first came into being:

The Origin of the Gods

In the beginning was Chaos. Then appeared Gaea (the earth) and Eros (love). Chaos gave birth to Erebus and Night, who, in turn, gave birth to Ether & Hemera (day).

Gaea then gave birth to Uranus (the celestial skies) and created the mountains and the seas. Gaea then lay with her son, Uranus, from which union was produced the first race, ‘The Titans’, composed of six males and six females. Next Gaea and Uranus gave birth to ‘The Cyclops’, gods with one single eye, followed by the monsters Cottus, Briareus and Gyges, each with a hundred arms and heads.

Uranus despised his offspring and shut them up in a cave. At this, Gaea grew angry and planned to kill Uranus. She consulted her children for help, but only one had the courage to help. This was her last born, ‘Chronos’. Chronos attacked Uranus with a sickle and cut off his

testicles, throwing them into the sea. The sea frothed and foamed and gave birth to the beautiful goddess, Aphrodite.

Chronos then liberated ‘The Titans’ and reigned on earth.

‘Night’ then gave birth to several offspring, namely: Doom, Death, Misery, Nemesis, Fraud, Incontinence, Old Age and Strife, from whom were born many others including Sorrow, Forgetfulness, Hunger, Disease, Combat, Murder, Battles, Massacres, Quarrels, Lies and Injustice.

The sea then united with Gaea and gave birth to Nereus (the truthful), Thaumas (the monstrous), Phorcys (the intrepid), Ceto (the pretty-cheeked) and Eurybia (the steel-hearted).

In addition, 3,000 sons (rivers), 3,000 daughters (water nymphs), Metis (wisdom), Tyche (Fortune), Styx (the infernal river), (the sun), Selene (the moon), and Eos (the dawn) were born to Uranus’ many offspring.

Finally, Chronos married his sister, Rhea, from which union were born three daughters (Hestia, Demetre and Hera) and three sons (, Poseidon and Zeus).

*******************************************************

Thus began the world. Further adventures then occured in the course of the gods inter- relations which were often violent, back-stabbing and incestuous. Below is an incomplete listing of the principle actors. I apologize in advance to the countless companions, lesser gods, minor divinities, water nymphs and monsters left out.

Fig: 28

Olympian Gods Cosmo- Gods Gods Gods Underworld Heros logical of wind of water of Earth

Zeus Helios Boreas (north) Gaea Hades Hercules

Hera Selene Zephyrus (west) Oceanus Demetre Persephone Theseus

Athene Eos Eurus (east) Nereus Kore Hecate Perseus*

Apollo Orion Notus (south) Proteus Rhea Jason &

Hestia Pleides Phorcys Cybele Argonauts

Artemis Hyades Glaucus Orpheus

Hermes* Triton

Ares

Hephaestus

Aphrodite

Poseidon

Recall, in comparison, Fantalov’s reduced archetype list for proto-Indoeuropean religion:

Gods of the sky – Goddess – Thunder gods – gods of earth and underworld – cultural heros

Of particular interest to our search for Lug is the tale of Perseus. Before telling this tale, however, let me make just one initial cross-reference to the Irish tale (p.97) to explain the link. There we saw that the Irish pantheon (‘Tuatha de Danaan’) was led by the mother-goddess figurehead ‘Danu’, whose name is possibly related to the Hindu water goddess, ‘Davanas’. Other references were given to show her Indoeuropean origin.

We also saw, that in Greek, 'Danaans' was an alternative name for the 'Achaeans'. These were Mycenaeans who had immigrated south from the Balkans sometime in the 3rd Millennium

B.C. Furthermore, in Greek myth, ‘Danae’ was the mother of Perseus. It is with this in mind that the tale of Perseus begins:

The myth of Perseus*

Danae was the daughter of King Acrisius of Argos. One day, the king was forewarned by an oracle that he would be killed by a grandchild, and so he locked Danae up in an underground chamber to keep her childless. However, Zeus came to Danae, in a shower of gold, and impregnated her. Consequently, Danae gave birth to a son: Perseus. When the king learnt the truth he threw both Danae and Perseus into the sea. They survived by being washed up on the Island of Seriphos where Perseus grew into manhood.

Some years later, the king of Seriphos ('Polydectes') wished to claim Danae's hand in marriage. As a ruse, since Danae was not immediately forthcoming, Polydectes deigned to propose to Hippodamy, asking friends to offer wedding presents; in particular, horses. Perseus, in defence of his mother, insolently offered him the head of Meduse. This was an ugly 'Gorgon'; a monster with hair of serpents, a long, protruding tongue and a face, so terrifying, that it would turn to stone anyone who looked at it.

Polydectes accepted Perseus' offer, which Perseus was then bound to provide. Athena gave him a polished shield in which to see Meduse's reflected image; Hermes gave him a sword with which to cut off Meduse's head, winged sandels with which to fly, and a helmet to render him invisible. Perseus then set off on numerous adventures to complete his task.

Eventually, Perseus succeeded in cutting off Meduses's head and returned to Seriphos, where he found his mother hiding in a temple from Polydectes. Perseus went straight to Polydectes and found him partying with friends. He showed them Meduse's head. They all looked at it and were turned to stone.

Perseus next sought out King Acrisius, his grandfather, and challenged him to a pentathlon. Acrisius accepted. However, during the competition, as Perseus threw his discus, a gust of wind (directed by the gods) took it and struck Acrisius down dead.

Perseus buried Ascius in the Temple of Athena and reigned upon the island.

******************************************************

We can now examine parallels between this Greek tale of Perseus and the Irish myth of Lugh. First we have the personnage similarities: Fig. 29

Greek Danae Zeus Perseus Meduse Polydectes Gorgons

Irish Ethlin Dian Lug Balor Bres Formorii Cécht

Secondly, we have incident/mythene similarities:

Fig. 30

Greek Irish

King Ascelius was warned that he would be Balor believe he would be killed by grandson killed by grandson and so locked up Danae and so locked up daughter Ethlin

Danae gave birth to Perseus, who was thrown Ethlin gave birth to Lug, who was thrown in in the sea the sea

Perseus father was Zeus, an Olympian god Lug’s father was Dian Cécht of the Tuatha dé Danaan

Perseus killed the hideous Meduse whose look Lug killed one-eyed Balor whose look could could kill. kill.

The Meduse was a mortal living with monsters Balor was part Fir Bolg (mortal) part Formorian (spirits of the land)

Perseus defeated Acriscius Lug defeated Brés, but spared his life in return for his agricultural knowledge

Perseus reigned Lug reigned

Need I say more? Well, I’m afraid so. In addition to Perseus, the role played by Hermes is not inconsequential for the Romans fashioned their own god ‘Mercury’ upon Hermes and it

was Mercury that Julius Caesar described as the Pan-Celtic god, which suggests that Mercury, for the Celtic world, was a romanized Lug.

Similarities between Hermes/Mercury and Lug are thus apparent and to examine these in detail we need to look at the myth of Hermes:

The Myth of Hermes

Hermes was the son of Zeus and Maia, who was the daughter of ‘Atlas’, a Titan. Hermes was born in a cave, but on the day of his birth he crept away and stole cattle entrusted to Apollo. He then created a fire and roasted the two fattest cows, sacrificing them to the Olympian gods before crawling back to his cradle.

Apollo noticed his missing cattle the next day and divined what had happened. Hence, he took Hermes by force to see Zeus, who laughed at Hermes’ prank, but ordered him to return the livestock to Apollo.

Hermes then fashioned a lyre from a tortoise shell and oxhide, and took this to Apollo as a gift. Charmed by the sound of the lyre, Apollo forgot his anger with Hermes. He entrusted him with the care of his cattle and gave him the gift of a golden wand. From this time on, Apollo and Hermes remained good friends: Apollo, the god of music and Hermes, the god of cattle and flocks.

Hermes never lost his fondness of playing pranks which actually endeared him to many, partly because he was also very helpful to those in need. In the war of the gods against ‘The Titans’, for example, he acquired the helmet of Hades, which rendered him invisible, and he used this to kill the giant Hippolytus. Another time, he helped Zeus escape and regain his health after he had been badly injured as a prisoner of Typhoeus. For this act, Zeus made Hermes his personal messanger.

In this messanger role, Hermes needed to speedily cross the skies. He thus fashioned himself winged sandals and added wings to his helmet to help him fly quicker. The sandals and helmet, as well as the golden sword, Hermes lent to Perseus on his mission the find and kill ‘The Meduse’. In this role of protector, Hermes also accompanied Hercules into the underworld. As the last of twelve labours assigned to him by Eurystheus to pay for crime of killing his wife and children, he descended there to the hound Cerberus; the guardian of the gates of hell. Thus Hermes had a special relation with underworld and often accompanied dead souls there to find their final resting places.

******************************************

Hermes in detail

Hermes was mankind’s protector. In particular, he guided men on their travels and his name was applied to wayside cairns and boundary marking pillars. Such journeys could include journeys to the underworld. He was thus also known as a ‘psychopompus’ (guide for dead souls) for he could enter the underworld without hindrance. Indeed, on occassions he could reverse the process: When the god Tantalus cut up his son into pieces, to be served in sacrificial offering to the Olympian gods, Zeus instructed Hermes to re-asssemble the pieces and bring the dead son back to life. He also accompagnied Orpheus into the underworld when he went there to try and retrieve his love, Eurydice, after she had been fatally bitten by a snake.

Hermes also protected herds and flocks. This aspect, as seen in the myth above, he acquired from Apollo. He was thus the god of shepherds and cowherds. Also evident from the above myth, is that Hermes was an intelligent, ingenious inventor. He invented the lyre and created fire on the day he was born. He is also said to have invented racing and wrestling. Consequently, he was the patron of atheletes.

In addition, Hermes was said to be an excellant persuader with the silver-tongued, smooth- talking gift of eloquence. This, he used, very soon after being born, to defend himself from the charge of cattle theft and, furthermore, he could inspire other people with such eloquence. Some say this facet of his character is derived from the Egyptian god, Thoth, who also was a god of wisdom and inventions, and, according to Egyptian mythology, created the universe with the sound of his voice.

As a mischevious prankster, Hermes was cunning. In part, he was able to play such pranks due to his possession of the helmet of Hades which rendered him invisible. But he was also cunning in commerce and thus became the patron of merchants.

But perhaps Hermes’ most important characteristic was his ability to move swiftly between the domains of sky, land and underworld. Thus, like a shaman, he was a traverser of cosmological domains, a crosser of boundaries, a ‘messanger of the gods’. In the Greek mythological context this enabled him to have lovers amoungst the goddesses (e.g. Persephone, Hecate, Aphrodite), water nymphs and mortals (e.g. Acacallois, daughter of Minos). It also meant that he was a translator of messages from gods to humans. Hence we find the origin of the word ‘hermeneutics’, which refers to the interpretation of hidden meanings.

In early Greek mythology, Hermes was depicted as an old, bearded man. However, from the 6th century B.C on, he was depicted as an athletic youth sporting winged sandals, a winged cap and a staff, commonly a cadeceus (from Asia Minor) entwined with snakes. He was also generally accompanied with a rooster or a tortoise; or both. This is remarkably reminiscent of the dual representation of J.J. Hatts statues of old man Teutates and young man Lug (Fig.13).

Hermes thus holds several aspects in common with Lug:

Hermes/ Lug similarities

Fig.31

Characteristics of Hermes Characteristics of Irish Lugh

Benefactor Benefactor

Inventor Master of arts/imparter of knowledge

Traverser of cosmological domains Traverser of cosmological domains

Yet, other characteristics of Hermes are detailed which correspond to other Irish gods:

Fig.32

Characteristic of Hermes Other Irish gods

prankster X

eloquence Ogmios (‘p.64) Brigit (p.63)

psychopomp Ogmios (p.64)

Without a doubt, Lug was also a hero. Greek myth told of four principle heros:

Fig. 33

Greek Celtic

Perseus, Hercules, Theseus, Jason Lug

All the heros were involved in killing ogres; in Jason’s case a dragon that guarded ‘The Golden Fleece’. Both Lug and Hercules first blinded their ogres to protect themselves from sights that could kill. ‘If looks could kill...’ remains a common expression today. Evidently it’s origins are mythological, possibly Indoeuropean.

The eye could thus be deadly, sending lightning bolts to kill all who looked at it. This common theme is seen with the eye of Balor (Celtic) and the eye of the Cyclops (Greek). Eyes and sight, as metaphors for consciousness, were dealt with in Fig.14. In Assyro-Babylonian mythology ‘Ea’, the god of the waters that surround the earth, was also kown as ‘Ninigiku’ (Lord of the sacred Eye): He was a god who watched over everything with vigilant wisdom. In Egyptian mythology the ‘Eye of Ra’ held similar potent powers.

Hence, Irish Lugh and Greek mythology were undoubtedly linked and it seems that the inter- connected web of mythological ideas stretched even further. It is doubtful, though, that Greco- Romano culture leant upon Celtic culture for inspiration, for they viewed the Celts as savage barbarians. More likely, Greco-Romano myths were supplanted upon a base of Celtic myth by medieval writers (as discussed). Yet, both stemmed from the same Indoeuropean mythological origins.

13. Roman Lug

Background History

Previous chapters have dealt with the Romans in Gaul. I simply intend here to briefly outline the emergence of the Roman Empire.

The earliest Italian settlements date to the lower paleolithic period, for example the sites at Pinenta de Isernia (730,000 B.P) and Quinzano (400,000 B.P). The material culture unearthed at these sites indicates Neanderthalensis presence. Homo sapiens sapiens presence emerged in the upper paleolithic, leaving examples of rock art and figurines, in caves, at such sites as Balzi Rossi (Liguria), Levanzo (Sicily), and Romanelli on the Salento coast.

Traces of Neolithic life (6,000-2,800 B.C.), showing the introduction of agriculture, weaving and pottery (possibly introduced from the Eastern Mediterrannean and Asia Minor), can be found across the Italian peninsular. Towards the end of this period copper came into use and the first examples of lakeside dwellings raised up on piles (e.g. Polada, Lake Garda).

Bronze age settlements were more tightly organized and permanent. It was in this era that regional groupings first came into being and megalithic structures were first built.

Post-paleolithic life began in Italy with the ‘Terramara (black earth) culture’ (1500-1100 B.C.) found in the Po Valley (N. Italy). The name comes from soil. Terramare people lived in large enclosures which were built up on wooden piles and buttressed by earthworks; probably as a survival from earlier lake dwelling days. Their refuse was thrown amoungst the piles and when this area was full, they would burn everything and start again. This gave the soils its ‘black look’.

The ‘Villanovan culture’ followed. First, this was with Proto-Villanovan culture (1100-900 B.C.) and then Villanovan culture proper (900-700 B.C.). Villanova is close to Bologna (N. Italy) and as a settlement, practised funery rites similar to those of the ‘urnfield culture’ of Central Europe. However, significantly, these urns were destinguished in being designed as ‘huts’ and scratch-decorated with swasticas, waves and squares.

Later Villanovan culture was influenced either by the emerging Greek culture, or by developing Celtic or Italic cultures; or both. Its range of influence was from the Po valley in the north, to Etruria on the west coast, and the region of Rome in central Italy. At the end of its era it was eclipsed by the growth of the Etruscan culture, though Villanova culture was evident in Etruria.

Etruria, woken from its prenascent slumbers by the arrival of Greek colonies in Magna Graeca, finally kicked off. The region was rich in metals and for this reason Corinthian artists had previously settled there. These settlers then helped set up Etruscan trade with the Greeks and Phoenicians in which iron, copper and silver were exchanged for luxury goods from the Eastern Mediterrannean. Such trade for luxury goods established an Etruscan aristotocracy.

As the Magna Graecia cities grew in the south, Etruscan and Greek trade conflicted. The Etruscans then found new markets through the central Apennines, into the Po valley and beyond reaching beyond the Alps and into Western Europe. The Rhine-Moselle region has a particularly high concentration of bronze beaked flagons and stamnoi excavated from aristicratic burials corresponding to the La Téne period. Certainly, Etruscan, and to some extent Greek, art styles blended with the developing Celtic styles of the La Téne period. One suggestion is that the Northern Italian Celtic tribes, ‘the ’ and ‘the Senones’, who had migrated south into the Po valley, maintained links with Celtic tribes north of the Alps and aided the transference of Greaco-Etruscan art styles into Western Europe. (B. Cunliffe. 2006)

At this time, there were many independent tribes in Italy besides the dominant Etruscans. Rome was then a cluster of village, heavily influence by Etruscan culture. However, the Roman people expelled the Etruscans in 510 B.C and thence began their climb to ascendence. Mythologically, of course, the foundation of Rome is dated at 753 B.C., by those famous twins Romulus and Remus, the sons of Mars and Rhea.

The Carthaginians, however, proved to be the thorn in the side for Roman development. Carthage was originally a Phoenician port in North Africa (Tunisia), but Carthaginians had also installed themselved on the south of the Italian peninsular from where they could control their trade monopoly of the Mediterrannean. As the Rome drew support from neighbouring tribes it grew in strength, becoming a single Italian confederacy in 264 B.C. Conflict with the Carthaginians was thus bound to arise. It did.

Three wars ensued: The first ‘Punic’ war was fought between 264 –241 B.C. with the result that Rome quickly became a naval power. The second Punic war (218-201 B.C.) included the capture of Cadiz (Iberia) and ended Carthaginian colonialisation in the Mediterrannean. The third Punic war (146 B.C.) entailed the Roman defeat of Carthage whose territory subsequently became Rome’s ‘Province of Africa’.

Throughout this period, Rome gradually extended is power. The northern Po Valley was of strategic importance for defence reasons in containing threats from ‘The Balkans’ and Asia Minor. And once Cadiz had been taken, the land route from the north of Italy, though Languedoc (southern Gaul), and into Iberia, enabled the passage of troops in and material gains out. Gold, silver, copper and slaves were the main commodities thus exported back to Rome and Rome become an Empire.

Background mythology

The Romans had no wonderful, colourful pantheon of gods like the Greeks with their internestine feuds and affairs. Rather, the Romans were a pragmatic lot with a catalogue (Indigitamenta) of gods that listed their powers, functions and appropriate rites. These gods were divided between protectors of the family and protectors of the state. The Romans were also not choosy in the provence of their gods, acquiring them from many sources: Etruria, Greece, Syria, Egypt, Persian...etc. In fact, they were often gods of former enemies.

I list here the principal gods and the agricultural gods. One primary reason for this listing is to show the rural nature of Roman gods, for even the principal gods began their mythological lives as agricultural/fertility gods before becomming associated with war as the Romans became militarized. I take for my guide the ‘New Larousse Encyclopaedia of Mythology’ which, having been first published in 1959 is now, not so ‘new’. But the myths remain the same.

Principal gods

Janus

Janus was an ancient Italic god of gods who name comes from the root ‘dius’ meaning ‘bright sky’. He was thus considered first as a solar god, but also a god of daybreak, beginnings, initiatives and enterprise, for which reason he was attributed with the creation of the world.

A second aspect of Janus is that he was god of doorways, gates and harbours and oversaw the comings and goings of people. From this characteristic he acquired the image of being ‘two- faced’ and was often represented as such

Mars

Originally, Mars was an ancient god of agriculture and fertility. As such, he was the god of the spring festival (‘Ambarvalia’) which was celebrated every 29th May.

Later, as Rome became a military power and moved away from its rural roots, Mars became the god of war; the son of Juno and husband of Rhea. Numerous temples were erected in his honour throughout the Roman empire and representationally he followed the Greek style being pictured as a bearded warrior with a cuirass and helmet. His companion was Bellona. He was also worshipped as Quirinus, although Romulus, Mars son and part-founder of Rome, too became worshipped as Quirinus.

Jupiter

Originally, Jupiter was an Etruscan god of light, the sun and moon (i.e. celestial phenomena) whose name stems from the root ‘di’ (celestial light). His function was to warn and punish people with his thunderbols.

Later, Jupiter became a warrior god; a protector of both city and State. In this role he rose in importance to being the head, tutelary god of the Roman Empire. Again, representations of him were drawn from Greek art.

Juno

Juno was the consort of Jupter. She was also the goddess of celestial light, in which role she became the goddess of childbirth for she protected newly born babies coming into the light. She was thus the ulimate Roman matron

Vesta

Vesta’s name relates to the Sanskrit root ‘vas’, meaning ‘shining’. She was the goddess of fire, food and drink, and gave rise to the festival of Vestalia celebrated each 7th june

Vulcan

He was the oldest of the Latin gods. A god of fire.

Saturn

Saturn was an agricultural deity whose name is derived either from the latin root ‘satur’ (‘gorged’) or ‘sator (‘a sower). He thus symbolised abundance. Saturn worked hard to harvest the earth’s riches. For this reason, the festival ‘Saturnalia’ (17th December) was a rural festival which latest for 7 days and was celebrated with continuous feasting.

Minerva

Minerva was of Etruscan origin who took on a Greek, ‘Athenian’ personality. She was a protectress of commerce, industry and schools, but later also became a warrior goddess.

Mercury

Mercury’s name is derived from the root ‘merx’ (merchandise) and ‘mercari’ (to deal, trade). Unlike several of the other gods, he was not very ancient nor rural. There was no need for commerce until the early 5th century B.C.

Mercury was often shown as a clean-shaven young man accompanied by a tortoise shell, a ram, and a sacred cock; the harbinger of the dawn. For this reason, temples to him were often sited in high places to receive the early morning rays. Representationally, he imitated the Greek god ‘Hermes’ in carrying a caduceus (staff) entwinned with serpents, a bag of coins, and sporting wings that sprouted either from his helmet or from his feet.

***************************************

Agricultural gods

Faunus

An agricultural, fertility god with the gift of prophecy. Also known as ‘Lupercal’ whose purificatory festival (‘Lupercalia’) was celebrated on 15th January and involved the sacrifice of goats. Priests performing the rite then wore the goat skins and whipped the hands of those women wishing to become pregnant. His companion was ‘Fauna’, who was also celebrated (early December) with fertility rites.

Consus

An ancient, agricultural god of Rome. This god had two festivals! The first was on 21st August, just after harvest, and involved such spectacles as chariot and horse races, and dancing. The second was on 15th December, after sowing, also involving chariot races.

Silvanus

A very ancient god of the forest who presided over land-clearence, cattle and the tilling of the soil. Apparently, he was feared by children and pregnant women.

Flora

Goddess of spring, fruit trees, vines and flowers. She too had two festivals in her honour: Floria (28th April), which was, apparently, ‘rather licentious’, and a rose festival on 23rd May.

***********************************************

In addition, there were water gods and nymphs. But then, all rivers, lakes and springs were considered sacred. The concept of the underworld was Etruscan in base, yet highly Greek influenced. Hell was in the centre of the earth and could be reached through caves, lakes and marshes. The main underworld gods were Orcus, Libitina, Mania, Lara, Lemures, Larvae and ‘The Manes’.

Finally, there were the gods of the city: ‘Fortuna’ (fate), ‘The Genius’ (protector of groups and group activities), ‘Lares’ (crossroads), ‘Tibernius’ (god of the river ‘Tiber’), ‘Angerona’ (protector goddess of secret name of Rome), ‘Terminus’ (god of property and the fixing of boundaries), ‘Bonus Eventus’ (god of business success), ‘Fides’, ‘Deus Fidius’ and ‘Semo Sancus’ (gods of transactions), and ‘’ (protectress of fields and woods. Goddess of victory).

The myth of Mercury

There is, in fact, no ‘myth of Mercury’. As previously stated, the Romans had no colourful stories concerning their gods as had the Greeks, just a utilitarian catalogue. On the other hand, it is evident that Mercury was derived from the Greek god ‘Hermes’.

Celtic Mercury

Whereas the Roman Mercury was portrayed as a clean shaven young man, in his Celtic guise he was often shown to be a bearded old man wearing a shawl. Thus did the Roman and Celtic representations diverge. However, his animal companions remained. To re-iterate, these were the goat, or ram, symbolising fertility; the tortoise, representing the myth of Hermes inventing the lyre from the tortoise shell, and the cockeral, the herald of the new day. Such symbolic animal representations were intended to enhance and intensify the symbolic representations of the gods they accompanied.

In the case of the serpent, as entwinned around Mercury’s cadeuses, this took on a particular aspect in the Gaulish representation in being portrayed with a ram’s head. An outstanding example of this can be seen on the ‘Gundestrap cauldron’ where the ram’s-headed snake is held by the god, Cernunnos. Similar ram’s head snake images can be found on the ancient rock- engraving of the northern Italian valley of Valcomonica.

In explaining this divergence from original Graeco-Roman iconography, it should first be recalled that the ram was a symbol of fertility/prosperity; as was Cernunnos a god of fertility. The snake, on the other hand was a symbol of death and chthonicism. In other words, the ram and the snake can be considered as two sides of the same coin: Health and death. (M. Green. 1986)

Central to Celtic belief is the concept of ‘regeneration’. Quite possibly this notion gained such central importance from more ‘oriental’ influences. Indeed, cyclical constructions of time are more ‘eastern’ than our ‘western’, teleological, beginning-end view of time and (going back a few steps) it is quite possible that cyclical time was a construct of speakers of proto- Indoeuropean, obtained from observing the seasons and skies. Indeed, teleological viewpoints were really introduced by the Greeks.

Hence, this example of ram-headed snake symbolism, exemplifies the manner in which Greco-Roman iconography became celticized to portray celtic beliefs. In reverse, by substituting Roman gods for celtic gods, as Julius Ceasar apparently did in equating Mercury with Lug, the fear is that celtic symbolism was lost.

Alexandra Kondratiev’s article (op.cit), ‘Lugh, the many gifted Lord’, lists three main important aspects relating to Mercury: Firstly, he notes how shrines to Mercury were often placed in high places, a fact previously alluded to in this work. In fact, mountain top depictions of Mercury were quite common.

Secondly, Kondratiev attributed ‘tricephaly’ to many representations of Mercury. That is, Mercury was often shown in triplicate. Actually, to be precise, it was his head or phallus that appeared in triplicate. There are several explanations for tricephaly. Kondratiev himself suggests that it symbolizes the three Dumezian functions (sovereignity, war and production), of which Mercury stood supreme. Miranda Green, on the other hand, offers that it could simply present different life stages for the gods in question, such as Mercury. This explanation has frequently been applied (particularly by feminist, new-age pagans) to the universal ‘Mother Goddess’, in labelling her three manifestations, ‘Maid, Mother and Crone’. This is largely due to the creativity of pagan fiction writer Robert Graves. Nethertheless, the idea stuck for many of today’s neo-pagans.

There is no doubt, however, that the number ‘three’ is accorded special significance in numerous mythologies across the globe; the ‘trinity’ in Christianity being a prime example. There is something far more solid and concrete about ‘three’ than ‘two’, for which reason I personally prefer to balance my camera on a tripod. Three strengthens two - the third side of a triangle is essential for balance and harmony. Three is also a simple repetition of ‘one’, enforcing the basic symbolic meaning.

The third element can also take on a particularly ‘sacred’ meaning in providing a conduit of transition between the first and the second elements. In this context, recall the previously mentioned notion of a ‘liminal zone’, as passed through during rites of transition. These ‘zones’ are considered particularly sacred, even ‘ritually dangerous’, and are only entered into under the guidance of religious experts after undergoing appropriate purificatory rites. Similarly, our terrestial cosmological element (earth) seperates, yet connects, the underworld below and the heavens above, in making a three-tiered system, and mythological personnages passing between these domains thereby engage in dangerous activities and are well protected. For example: Hermes, with his helmet of invisability and his wings for swift flight.

The third aspect Kondratiev attributes to Mercury is Sovereignity. Particulary in Belgium and the , Mercury is shown holding a spear and standing with his consort Rosmerta, who was, herself, a symbol of sovereignity. Indeed, Rosmerta was the divine keeper of the drink of sovereignity which was ritually shared and drunk during communal feasts, symbolically binding celebrants. It may seem unusual to have a Celtic goddess accompanied by a Roman god consort, but in fact such divine marriages were common. In which case, the goddess was generally Celtic and the god Roman.

Mercury equals Lug ?

Julius Caesar pretty much laid it on the line with his famous statement about the Gauls worship of Mercury (op. cit.). To re-quote:

'...of all the gods, they most worship Mercury. He has the largest number of images and they regard him as the inventor of all the arts, as their guide on the roads and in travel, and as chiefly influential in making money and in trade'.

However, perhaps the parallels should be more definitively listed:

Firstly, Lug was the Pan-European Celtic god. Most of the others were highly localised. Even Taranis and Teutates did not receive the widespread coverage of Lug and though Esus may be mentioned in the same breath, as documented by Lucan, representations of him are extremely limited.

Secondly, as seen from the Irish context, Lug(h) was also a multi-functional, ‘master of all arts’. This tallies with ‘Tom the Tinkard’ in the Cornish version and Lleu Llan Gryffes, the artisanal shoemaker in the Welsh version. Mercury, of course, was an imitation of Hermes, the apical artisan who invented the lyre; created fire on his day of birth, and was generally sought after for his practicality. For sure, Mercury was associated with mercantile affairs, for the utilitarian Romans had become entrenched in commercial dealings. But in common with Mercury, Lug too had shown shrewdness as an icon of business dealings. This connection maybe rather presumptuous, but it was discussed earlier how ‘lugios’ (word) had a duel meaning (‘oath’ and ‘lies’), and that whereas in some contexts this could indicate ‘trickster god’, in others it could represent business acumen. The Segosiaves of pre-, recall, had to be rather sharp in holding onto their trading position between the Rhône and Loire before the Romans arrived and established Lugdunam as a world centre of trade being the only place in the Roman Empire that minted money. No wonder Mercury and Lug became conjecturally conjoined!

Thirdly, there is the question of ‘tricephally’: Many Gallo-Roman sculptural forms of Mercury represented him with a triple face, or even phallus, and Lug too was sometimes represented in the plural form: For example, in dedications found on alters to ‘Lugoues’ in Avenches (Switzerland) and ‘Lugouibus’ in Soria (Spain). In fact, it has been suggested that

this plural designation may link Lug to the Roman cult of the ‘Matres’ in which triple mother goddesses were transpositions of the triple aspect of Lug. Note that Maia (see above) was the mother of Mercury and an ‘Earth Mother’, and that Lugh (see Irish version) was the foster son of ‘Talltiu’, who was also considered as ‘Earth Mother’. Furthermore, relating Mercury and Lug’s ‘tricephally’ to Dumézil’s three Indoeuropean functions indicates that both were representative of priests, war and productivity.

Dumézil’s three functions in Roman myth were represented by Jupiter (priestly class), Mars (warrior class) and Quirinus (agricultural class). Quirinus was an alternative name for Mars.

14. The Spanish Lug

Celtiberian Background

The traditional model of agrarian expansion from the east to the west dates the arrival of early neolithic settlements into southern Iberia between 6000-5000 B.C. Megalithic monuments then became concentrated in two separate areas: South-east Iberia and South-west Iberia, these being dated between 4500-4000 B.C. Hence, it was the south that developed first. This southern concentration continued as metallurgy took off, but then a major source of tin was located in the north-west which developed this area with the arrival of the Bronze Age circa. 2,500 B.C.

Three culturally distinct European systems existed in the late bronze age: The Atlantic, the Nordic and the Urnfield Culture of Central Europe from where the Celtic language emerged. Iberia was divided into two culturally distinct groups: The Atlantic zone, with inter-neighbour trading along the Atlantic coast as far as Cornwall, and The Mediterranean zone, with trade occurring between Eastern and Western Mediterrannean, as confirmed by Mycaenae pottery finds at Andalucia.

Atlantic trade had, in fact, been going on for millenia, as is attested by such cultural similarities as the passage graves of Ireland and the Orkneys (Maes Howe). We saw too (P.38) that Professor Brian Sykes has recently discerned a genetic link between Iberian fishermen and the British stemming from migrations in 6,000 B.C. Such on-going contact, it is suggested (e.g. Cunliffe 2006), entailed belief systems and technological skills commonly held throughout the Atlantic zone.

Traditionally, the date of 1104 B.C. is given for the founding of a Phoenician colony at Cadiz. However, this date is questioned and a more definite 9th/8th century B.C. date is proposed for the establishment of Phoenician settlements in that area; which thereby became ‘orientalized’. The colonialization of Iberia by the Phoenicians gave the bronze age a boost as the rich mineral resources (including gold, silver and tin) of the Atlantic zone (including , Brittany, Cornwall, Wales and Ireland) were exploited and shipped east. Mediterrannean entrepreneurs thus began to trade with the Atlantic zone. The Greeks too got involved in this trade with the Greek navigator ‘Pyththeus’ circumnavigating Britain in the 6th century B.C.

The mineral rich region of ‘Tartessos’ (in S.W. Iberia) rose in importance following the discovery of silver in its hills. This commodity, and others, were then exported eastwards and in return eastern goods and skills were imported in, giving rise to a Tartessosian aristocracy.

This was similar to the Etruscan aristocracy who had previously attracted the Phoenicians and Greeks due to their mineral resources.

Contemporaneously, Mediterrannean trade linked up with the Urnfield cultural zone and blends of Hallstatt and Mediterrannean design affected the Iberian material culture giving it its own specific look. Contact between the two regions was thus evident, despite the great separating divide of the Pyrennees. In fact, the earliest Celtic incursions into Iberia have been traced back to the ‘Almería culture’, based in the south-east and occuring mid-bronze age (Gimpara. 1943). Yet, North-East Iberia was the most affected by this Celtic/Iberian blend and from here (circa. 10th century B.C.) emerged the ‘Casto culture’, consisting of hill top settlements of circular huts (‘castros’). Celtic migrations into the area stepped up a pace during the La Téne period (circa. 6th century B.C.) in which these hill top settlements took on a more permanant regard, being built with stone walls and ditches. In time (3rd century B.C.), these ressembled the great, fortified ‘oppida’ of Gaul.

Thus arose the distinct cultural zone of the Celtiberians: A unique blend of Celts and indigenes in which the social system, language and material culture was similar, but different, to that of the Celts in Western Europe. These Celtiberians were composed of numerous tribes: The ‘Arevaci’ were the most dominant, but the ‘Okilis’, the ‘Belli’, the ‘Titti’, the ‘Lusons’ and the ‘Lugoues’ were also firmly established. In close comparison to the Celts of Western Europe they were also governed under a hereditary military aristocracy. Perhaps this explains why they became such excellant mercenaries in fighting for the Carthaginians against the Romans during the Punic wars.

Celtiberian mercenaries were most involved in the second Punic war, led by Hannibal. However, as is so well known, the Cartaginians were defeated and as a result the Celtiberians too were forced to submit to the Roman Empire (195 B.C.). Conflicts continued, for sure, but the Romans steadily encroached upon Iberian soil and the Celtiberians gradually bowed under the weight of Roman power and influence. The war against Sertorius (79-72 B.C.) finally ended all resistance.

Lug in Spain

The existence of Lug in Spain is very evident and commonplace, as shown below:

Fig. 35

Theonym: Lugus Toponym: , Lugo de Llanera, Luco de Bordón, Luco de Jiloca, Lugones, Logobre, Santa Maria of Lugo, Lugás, Lugus Anthroponym: Lougeius, Lougo, Lougus, Lucus, Lugua, Luguadicius Family name: Lougeidocum, Lougesterico, Lougesticum

(e-keltoi. Vol. 6. Centre of . University of Milwaukee)

Furthermore, numismatic evidence (coin analysis) shows a definite link between Lug and shoemaking. Apparently, to quote from the e-keltoi text, two researchers (Gricourt and Holland) found that such coins show:

‘... a beardless male figure with wavy hair and large hands. The god holds a trident upright in his left hand and in the right one a bird. On his left shoulder there is another bird from which two belts hang.... the deity is Lugus and the legend of the coin reads SVTS AVG, which means ‘Sutus Aug(ustus) or divine shoemaker”. (my italics)

(e-keltoi. Ibid)

This link is corroborated by a dedication inscribed on an alter in the town of Osma, Soria, to the ‘Luguoes’, made by a shoemaker’s guild. The link between Lug and shoe-making, recall, was also recounted in the Welsh tale of ‘Lleu Llan Gryffes’ whereby Gwydion disguised himself as a shoemaker to break the curse that his son would have no name. In this tale, shoe- making is taken as a symbol of craftmanship and the artisanal Lug is again represented.

There is, however, a second significance to shoe-making. Namely, that shoes are made for walking. This may be stating the obvious, but I point out that hobnailed boots were occassionally placed in graves to assist the passage of souls into the otherworld - particularly in Britain. Boots thus helped transition between states and Lug, like Hermes and Mercury, is thought to have been a mythological personnage who too moved between states even though, in the Irish mythology, ‘Ogmios’ was the psychopompus who guided souls to the underworld.

Shoes, of course, protect feet, which too have often been accorded sacred significance, as can be seen below:

Fig.36

Feet

1) Feet, as appendages, have often been considered identical to horns in being outcrops of the procreative life-fluid.

2) This association of feet with procreation is expressed within fairy tales and myths e.g. Cinderella’s shoe and Achillis’ heel, whose weak point was lustful love. Mary Magdellan washing Christ’s feet again expresses the sanctity of feet.

3) This association is not limited to Indoeuropoeans. The Chinese custom of binding feet, and the bridegroom asking the bride’s parents for her shoes on the event of her pre-marriage death instance more globally the importance of feet to procreation. (R.B. ONIANS 1951)

15. The Norse 'Lug' Background

The Norse peoples of Scandinavia were Indoeuropens. However, their linguistic line had diverged in a completely different direction from the Celts and led to the . From an embyonic ‘Proto-Germanic’, three branches of German arose as Germanic speakers (‘Teutons’) spread out across northern Europe: North Germanic, West Germanic and East Germanic.

Derived from the North Germanic language (‘’) are today’s Scandinavian languages. Derived from the West Germanic language are the German dialects, Dutch, English and Frisian. The East Germanic language similarly diverged but its lines petered out many centuries ago. Only Gothic left any written record (a 4th century part-bible translation), though a form of Gothic was still being spoken in the Crimea in the 17th century (Barber. Op.cit).

Fig. 37

Proto-Germanic

North Germanic West Germanic East Germanic (Old Norse)

Icelandic High German Burgundian Norwegian Low German Vandal Faroes Dutch Gothic Danish English Swedish Frisian Gutnish (simplified from Barber. 1993)

No records exist of Proto-Germanic, which was established south of Scandinavia; upon the Baltic sea isles, and in the northern German plains several centuries B.C. Hence, little is known of the religion practised by its speakers. Nevertheless, and despite being not politically united, they shared a common culture and probably similar religious beliefs and customs.

Possibly, Proto-Germanic speakers shared similar cosmological conceptions with other descendents of proto-Indoeuropean (Celts, Greeks etc.), even though they devised a unique Teutonic mythology. However, some may consider examining ‘Lug’ in a Germanic context stretching things too far. An internet article discussing ‘Loki’ by Anatoly Liberman, for example, dammingly refers to the ‘multifarious fantasies on Indoeuropean themes’, thus suggesting that etymological links to Indoeuropean roots are frequently fictitious. In fact, Liberman cites ‘lǔka’ (to close, to lock up, to bolt), German ‘Loch’ and Old English ‘loc(a)’ (enclosure) as being cognates of ‘Loki’, a god he believes was originally a chthonian deity. He thereby refrains from supporting any Indoeuropean correlation between Lug and Loki. On the other hand, to cite an opposing example, ‘www.yourdictionary.com’ describes the etymology of the Norse god ‘Loki’ as stemming from an Old Norse word meaning ‘destroyer’ which, in turn, is derived from the Indoeuropean word ‘leug’ meaning ‘to break’.

Clearly, nothing is black-and-white, although some light is thrown on this question by Professor Hutton who queries distinctions made between Celtic and Germanic mythologies. I quote him in full:

‘Scholars of German and Norse mythology identify the Scandinavian Odin, the German Woten and the Anglo-Saxon Woden as the same figure. Scholars of Celtic mythology have decided that the names Lugh, Lud, Lug and Lleu, from Ireland to the Alps, denote the same god. But few or none notice that in many respects they are probably all the same individual or divine stereotype, the multi-talented, creative trickster and enchanter.’ (Op.cit. p.269. Italic in original)

The important thing to note is that Hutton associates Lug with Odin rather that Loki. To look into this matter closer, we should therefore examine both mythological figures.

Due to the aforementioned limited written record of East Germanic, Teutonic mythology comes to us today from the North and West Germanic languages. Primarily, this is North Germanic, for authentic, primary source documentation on West Germanic culture is sparse. There are two reasons for this: Latin historians (e.g. ) who detailed western Germanic culture described everything in Roman terms, as they did in Gaul. Thus west was recorded under the rubric of Roman mythology. Furthermore, the West Germanic region came under the influence of Christianity during the seventh century which

also re-invented the historical record. Thus, the main source of Teutonic mythology is from the north where Scandinavians kept alive ancient beliefs in writing, and there was much overlap between north and west cultures. The most important source on these ancient cultures is the ‘Eddas’; a collection of poems. Other works included songs, poetry manuals and historical treatise. Though medieval, they do much to inform us of Teutonic mythology.

Norse Mythology

Norse (Teutonic) mythology, similar to Greek mythology, features a pantheon of immortals (the ‘Aesir’) who lived in a heavenly abode (‘Asgard’). Three Aesir play predominant roles: ‘Odin’ (West German: Wotan), ‘Thor’ (West German: Donar), and ‘Tyr’ (West German: Tiw). Norse mythology differed from Greek mythology, however, in having a second race of immortals: the ‘Vanir’. Whilst the Aesir were belligerent warriors, the Vanir were peace- loving pacifists who provided fertile abundance and protected commerce and navigation. Originally, the two sides fought. But then they reached a compromise which entailed several Vanir going to live in Asgard.

Norse cosmology, like other Indoeuropean cosmologies, was tri-partite. However, this was a planar model rather than a stacked sky-earth-underworld model. In the Norse model the earth (‘Midgard’) was both surrounded by waters and circled by the coils of a great serpent. North of the waters was an abyss, beyond which lay ‘Niflheim’, a land of clouds and shadows. To the south was ‘Muspellsheim’, a land of fire (see Fig. 38).

This was the cosmological picture at the beginning of time. Later, when Asgard entered the picture it found a place in an upper, celestial region joined to land by a great rainbow bridge named ‘Bifrőst’. An underworld too came into existence and was accorded the name of the northen region ‘Niflheim’ (or ‘Niflhel’). Thus we have a typical, layered, three-part cosmology.

Fig. 38

‘Niflheim’ (land of ice)

abyss

waters snake Earth/ ‘Midgard’

abyss

‘Muspellsheim’ (land of fire)

Another tradition portrays the world as a gigantic tree: ‘Yggdrasil’. This tree had three roots. One root reached down into the underworld ‘Niflhel’, near a fountain ‘Hvergelmir’, which was the source of rivers. One root reached into the land of giants and the fountain ‘Mimir’, which was the source of wisdom. And one root reached into the heavens and the fountain ‘Urd’, the waters of which nourished the tree.

Origin of the World

The world began, according to Norse mythology, when ‘Niflheim’ and ‘Muspellheim’ came into contact. This brought about melting ice from which a giant was formed named, ‘Ymir’. Ymir sweated and from the drops a man and women were born. The melting ice also gave form to a cow, ‘Audumla’ and on licking the ice, Audumla brought forth a living being, ‘Buri, who in turn had a son named, ‘Bor’, who married the daughter of Ymir, called ‘Bestle’. ‘Bor’ and ‘Bestle’ then had three sons, ‘Odin’, ‘Vili’ and ‘Ve’: Premier gods of Asgard (see fig. 39).

Fig. 39

Ymir Audumla (cow)

Son daughter Buri = Bestle Bor

Similar to Greek, the Norse pantheon contains many divinities; not to mention ‘Norns’ (‘mistresses of fate’), ‘Valkries’ (flying goddesses who chose whether warriors’ lived or died in battle), ‘Spirits’ (souls of the dead), ‘Elves’ (benevolent or malicious nature spirits), ‘Dwarfs’ (underground dwellers created from the grubs that ate dead Ymir’s body) and ‘Giants’, known in Scandinavia as ‘Trolls’ (originally personifications of natural phenomena. They pre-dated and often defied the gods). But the two we are most concerned with here are Odin and Loki:

Odin

Odin was a handsome and intelligent god of war. He wore a shining breastplate, a golden helmet, and carried a spear, named ‘Gungnir’, which had been forged for him by dwarfs. He also rode the swiftest of horses, named ‘Sleipnir’. Amongst the gods he held court at ‘Valhalla’. This was an immense hall where he welcomed fallen warriors and was served by the Valkries. Amongst men, however, he appeared as an inconspicuous traveller wearing a cloak and a broad-brimmed hat.

Odin had many attributes. Not least was wisdom, which gave him power over the spoken word, and his eloquent speech and poetry was reknowned. In fact, he was also known as, ‘Lord of the runes’, for he understood their magic and used this knowledge to create magical formulas to cure illnesses; control the waves; seduce women, and make the dead speak. Odin was also a shape shifter, an ability he cunningly utilised in battle. Hutton describes Odin (Anglo-Saxon: ‘Woden’) as being the most important British god of his time, having a day of the week named after him (Wednesday = ‘Woden’s day). He also describes him as being a

‘cunning deceiver heralded on hills and at crossroads’; an ‘enchanter’, and a ‘travelling trickster’. (Ibid).

Such is Odin’s imortance that he features in many Norse tales. To get a flavour and see his attributes in action, I briefly outline two tales merged into one.

Two myths of Odin

The story goes that when the Aesir and Vanir made a truce they both spat in a vase to mix their saliva, and from this saliva a man (‘Kvasir’) was born.

However, two dwarfs killed Kvasir and mixed his blood with honey to make a potion (‘hydromel’). Whoever drank this potion would become a poet and a sage. The two dwarfs also killed the father of a giant called ‘Suttung’ and in seeking vengence Suttung stole the hydromel and hid it in an underground cavern sealed by heavy rocks.

Odin sought this potion. And so he persuaded Suttung’s brother (‘Baugi’) to make a hole in the rocks and then changed into a snake to slide through the hole. Once in the hole he resumed his normal shape and drank the potion. Then he slid back through the hole, changed into an eagle and flew away. Thus did he acquire the gift of wisdom and poetry.

2) Some time later, Odin underwent a rite of rejuvenation by wounding himself with his sword and then hanging himself in the tree of ‘Yddrasil’ for nine days and nights. During this time no-one came to offer him any nourishment and he was in danger of dying. Luckily, however, he saw some runes close to hand and managed to lift them. Magically, these gave him new life and so he descended from the tree; resurrected. He returned home, drank some hydromel and regained the gifts of wisdom and poetry. ______

Without a pause for discussion we move directly to Loki:

Loki

Loki has gone done in popular myth and legend as a mischievous prankster; a reputation that has even gone so far as to equate him with Satan. Yet, while Loki has been recognised as an 'instigator of conflict', he was also regarded as a 'resolver of conflict'.

Loki was the son of ‘Farbauti’ and ‘Laufey’; 'frost giants'. He had a brother called ‘Angerboda’, who had three children: ‘Jormungandr’ (a sea serpent), ‘Fenrir’ (a wolf) and ‘Hel’ (ruler of Hell). Loki's family were thus ‘semi-divine beings’, part man/part beasts, and stood in opposition to the divine gods of the Scandinavian pantheon. That this opposition was conflictual is evident, for the god 'Odin' is known to have killed Loki's mother, 'Laufey'.

Odin brought up Loki as a younger brother. This created unbalanced tensions within the family hierarchy for Loki soon became jealous of Odin's oldest son: 'Baldur'. The tensions were heightened by Loki's dual family position (frost giants/divine pantheon) and his ability to pass between them. This potential he exploited to advantage, frequently to make amorous conquests.

But Loki was not a prankster solely for mischief's sake, as many modern myths retell. Mythically, Loki created and solved conflict by being a 'transgressor of boundaries'. That is to say, Loki was able to move between the boundaries that separate gender, animals, and the world of gods from the world of ‘semi-divine beings’. From falcon to horse to salmon, Loki changed shape in order to trick people and manipulate situations. Sometimes, however, this was for the common good for paradoxically, in being external to the 'norms' of life, Loki was able to weave webs of deceit in order to create more harmonious social existence. For such good deeds, he paid the personnel price of self-sacrifice.

This more positive image of Loki presents him as a provider of culture. Indeed, in Scandinavian mythology Loki is said to have provided Thor with his hammer; Odin with his spear, and Freja with a golden boar. Here is his tale:

The Myth of Loki

Loki was adopted by Odin, who had killed his mother, Laufrey. This privileged Loki to have access to Asgard, the realm of the gods. Odin's wife was Frigga and together they had a son, Baldur, of whom Loki became jealous. One night, Baldur dreamt that he was going to die and so Frigga travelled the world asking all living and non-living things not to harm him. However, she neglected to ask one plant: The mistletoe.

Other gods inhabiting Asgard learnt of Baldur's invincibility. Consequently, they enjoyed throwing all manner of objects at him, for nothing could harm him. Loki saw this and sought to discover Baldur's secret. Disguising himself as an old woman he tricked Frigga into telling him. On discovering the truth, he then tricked Hod, Baldur's half-blind half-brother, into throwing a dart of mistletoe at Baldur. This killed Baldur.

Frigga, distraught for the loss of her son, travelled to Hela, the god of the underworld, asking for Baldur to be spared. Hela agreed, on condition that all creatures mourn Baldur's death. And so, all grieved for Baldur. All except Loki, who knowing that Odin would suspect him of betraying his son, disguised himself as a giantess.

Odin did suspect Loki and sought to capture and punish him. Loki escaped to the mountains where he invented a fishing net, burnt it and then turned himself into a salmon; hiding under a waterfall. He was found by Thor who caught him by the tail and took him to the depths of a deep cave inhabited by a poisonous snake, where he chained him up. Venom from the snake dripped onto Loki's face causing him to writhe in pain as muscular spasms ripped through his body. And such, it is said, explains the reason for earthquakes.

*************************************************

Fig.40

Loki's Geneology

Asgard Frost Giants (mythical pantheon) (Semi-divine beasts)

Farbauti Laufrey

Frigga Odin Loki Angerboda

Baldur Hod Thor Jormungandra Fenrir Hel

Odin & Loki

To recap: Odin was a wise poet with mastery of language. He often travelled between the world of gods and men; albeit in different guises. He also changed his form to gain specific advantages; primarily during battle. He was a cunning, travelling trickster. Finally, Odin engaged in a ‘shamanic’, self-sacrificing rite of rejuvenation.

Loki was a prankster. He also travelled between domains (the gods and the ‘semi-divine beings’) and was able to change his form. Due to his pranks positive benefits arose. For example, he invented the fishing net and then burnt it in such a way that its ashes would be found to give the inspiration for its re-invention. . Loki was thus instrumental in helping man cross the divide between ‘savage’ and ‘civilised'. Nevertheless, Loki’s pranks had a michievous quality about them for which he paid his dues: He was sacrificed to an underground snake. Odin, on the other hand, acquired the runes, wisdom, and poetry: Gifts of language.

Evidently, Odin and Loki hold certain features in common: Trickery, shape-changing, transgressing boundaries, and sacrifice. The difference between them is that Odin, who was an ‘immortal’ rather than a ‘god’ (as with the Greek pantheon) moved between immortals and

men. Loki, on the other hand, moved between ‘immortals’ and ‘semi-divine beings’. In fact, they were rather like personified ‘ying-and-yangs’: Similar and overlapping, yet different. Odin was ‘good’, with a touch of negativity due to his trickery. Loki was ‘bad’, with a positive aspect to his character for positive advantages were acquired through his pranks.

Comparative note: The biblical serpent that incited Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge was made to crawl upon its stomach in recompense. Mythologically, knowledge is transferred from gods to man. For 'man' it is a received gift; for the gods it is a sacrifice. In Christianity, Christ imparted a spiritual gift to mankind. In giving this gift, Christ suffered.

Concerning Dumézil’s tripartitie model: The gods Odin, Thor and Freyr were said to represent the three Indoeuropean functions. Hence, Odin and Thor were both sovereigns with Odin dealing with ‘otherworldly’ (priestly) affairs and Thor with war. Freyr, was representative of production. As mentioned in the introduction, however, this model has been criticized- one reason being the dual nature of Norse mythology, such as between the Aesir and the Vanir.

Lug in Scandinavia

The prefix ‘Lok’ is particularly common in northern place names. Hence, most of the following place names are found in Scandinavia. Odin and Woden are far less common.

Fig.41

Lok-

Lokalahti – Finland Lokkosova – Russian Federation Lokchin – Rus.Fed Lokkot – Russ.Fed. Loken – Belgium Loksa - Estonia Lokenen – Belgium Lokshak – Russ.Fed Loket – Ukraine Loks Land - Canada Lokka – Finland Lokker – Denmark Lokken – Norway Lokantekojojarvi – Finland

(The Times Atlas of the World. 1992)

Odin-

Odin – oil rig – North Sea Odiham - England Odin – USA Odhill - Canada Oding – Germany Odon - France Odinstovo – Russian Federation Odon – USA

(The Times Atlas of the World. 1992)

Woden-

Woerden – Wotton - Canada Wodzislaw – Poland Wotton under Edge - England

(The Times Atlas of the World. 1992)

16.The Egyptian Lug

Background

Semi-nomadic hunter-gathers occupied the Nile valley from Paleolithic times onwards. But from 7,000 B.C. pastoralism became increasingly common and the first agricultural settlements date from around 5,000 B.C. These were independent communities having individual deities; of which there were many.

In Egypt, the sail was invented in 3,500 B.C., which greatly promoted trade up and down the Nile. Then, in 3,100 B.C. King Menes united upper and lower Egypt, establishing a Capital city at Memphis. From this time on Egypt was governed by a dynasty. The early dynastic period of 3,100-2,685 B.C. experienced a high population growth plus an increase in skilled trades, such as copper-smelting and stone masonry. It was also at this time that hieroglyphics came into practice.

The ‘Old Kingdom’ began in 2,685 B.C. This was the age when the first ‘step pyramid’ was built at Saqqara, by Imhotep, for King Zoser. The great ‘Cheops’ pyramid at Giza was built in 2,590 B.C.

The balance between individual village heterogeneity and greater, national homogeneity reflects the Celtic scenario in which most deities were particular to particular communities. Yet, in the creation of a singular nation governed by a singular dynasty, Egypt saw various deities rise to nationwide prominence. Of these, the most reknowned are Ra, Amun, Isis, Osiris, Thoth, Ptah, Horus, Anubis.

Thus, an Egyptian pantheon came into existence comprising of gods whom had first appeared as local tribal gods around the middle of the fourth millenium B.C. Originally these gods were totemic animals or birds (i.e. symbolic figureheads of the tribes they represented), but gradually these deities assumed human form and by the second dynasty all that was left were animal heads sitting on a human body. Finally, the heads too became human, but they wore headresses which symbolised the original animal divinity/totemic form.

Similar to Indoeuropean gods, many Egyptian deities had cosmological significance. Hence, the sky goddess was known as Nut or Hathor; the earth god, Geb; the moon, Aah, Thoth or

Khons and the primordial chaos was known as Nun or Nu. The sun had many names e.g. Aten, Khepri, Ra, Atum or Horus.

Egyptian mythology, like the Greek, consisted of complex inter-necine affairs. However, much was passed on as an oral tradition and so many details are lost. The most detailed record is the tale of Osiris, recorded by the Greek historian Plutarch and corroborrated by rare, surviving ancient texts. It is recounted below:

The myth of Osiris

Osiris was the son of Geb and Nut. When he was born a loud, mysterious voice cried out announcing the birth of a ‘Universal Lord’ to which many rejoiced, though many also cried tears of woe knowing the fate awaiting him. When Osiris grew up he took Isis, his sister, as his wife, becoming ‘King of the Earth’ when his father, Geb, retired.

On assuming this kingly title, Osiris first outlawed cannabalism and introduced agriculture, including the production of bread, wine and beer. He also instigated religious practices; invented a ceremonial flute; built temples, and sculpted divine images. He then set off to civilise the world outside Egypt, accompanied by Thoth, Anubi and Upuaut.

On his return, Osiris was killed by his jelous brother, who tricked him into lying in a coffin then, quickly closing the lid, threw it into the sea. However, Isis found the coffin which had drifted over to the Phoenician coast and was entangled in the roots of a tamarisk tree. She thus brought the coffin containing her dead husband back to Egypt, conceiving her son Horus by magical union with her husband’s corpse. Isis then hid the coffin in the local swamps.

By chance, Set discovered the coffin. He opened it up and tore Osiris’ body into fourteen parts scattering them far and wide. But these, Isis found and re-assembled. Then, in the first instance ever recorded, she embalmed the body, thereby delivering it to eternal life.

______

In this tale we meet, in passing, Thoth. In being a ‘messenger of the gods’, the Greeks related Thoth to Hermes. Lug, as several times discused, was also related to Hermes. Hence, Thoth is worth examining in greater detail:

Thoth

Thoth’s original name was ‘Djehuti’, after his province of origin in Lower Egyt. He was often represented as a divine ibis who hatched ‘the world-egg’, as well as being instrumental in the creation of the universe. Through the sound of his voice four gods and goddesses materialized who sang day and night to ensure the daily passage of the sun across the skies.

Thoth was Osiris’ magician and he assisted Isis in re-assembling Osiris after he’d been torn into fourteen parts. He then helped Isis conceive from Osiris’ corpse and in resurrecting him to eternal life though embalming. In other words, he knew the magical formulas necessary to command the forces of nature and subdue the gods. For this reason, he was known as ‘Lord of Holy Words’ and ‘Inventor of Hieroglyphics’, and was ascribed the term ‘Thoth’ which means ‘three times very great’. Translated into Greek, this became ‘Hermes Trismegistus’.

Thoth reigned first on earth, then ascended to the skies where he guarded the moon and its changing phases. As moon god, he was often represented as a baboon wearing a crescent moon on his head. Thoth became responsible for measuring time and in this role he invented the calendar as well as arithmetic, surveying, geometry and astronomy. He thus came to be considered as an incarnation of wisdom and knowledge, being a patron of science, soothsaying, magic, medicine, music, surgery, drawing, writing, literature and inventions.

Thoth had a wife named ‘Seshata’; a name very coincidentally close to the Segosiaves ancestress ‘Segeta’ whom Lug is said to have kidnapped (p. 47). Sesheta was actually Thoth’s double who also measured time and was said to have invented ‘letters’. In fact, she was more like Thoth’s scribe.

Some aspects of Egyptian mythology may well have diffused into Greek mythology. It was earlier discussed that Egyptian culture influenced Minoan culture on Crete and that Minoan culture spread onto the Greek mainland where it was absorbed by the ‘northern invaders’; though the Dorians kept their own Indoeuropean gods. The ‘Thoth-Hermes’ connection is a case to point. It is also of interest to this ‘search for Lug’ for the ‘Hermes-Lug’ connection has been strongly stressed throughout this work.

The possibility raised is thus:

Fig. 42

Thoth – Hermes – Lug

This possibility is fortified when considering that Lug is also characterized as being a ‘master-of-all-arts’. A designation also applied to Thoth (see above). On the other hand, the Celtic god ‘Ogmios’ and his daughter ‘Brigit’ had the gifts of eloquence (fig.32), understanding well the power of the spoken word. Some blending of attributes is apparent.

Concerning Dumézil’s three functions of priests, warriors and farmers: Certainly, the Osiris myth deals with the question of sovereignity, for he was ‘king of the earth’. It also deals with production, for Osiris introduced agriculture, bread, wine and beer to ancient Eygptian society. Thoth too, in being considerd a ‘master-of-all-arts’ and patron of the sciences, was involved in introducing new cultural practices to ancient Egyptian society, thereby fulfilling Dumézil’s third function of production. The function of war, however, in the above Osiris myth at least, is a bit thin on the ground. Of course, ancient Eygptian was related to the afro-asiatic group of languages and not the Indoeuropean. Nevertheless, Dumézil did included north African groups within his classification and evidently cultural flow diffused across the Mediterrannean both ways from early times.

17. The Sumerian 'Lugal-banda'

An alternative route on the search for Lug is to retreat to an earlier time. Such is the epoch of ‘’; an ancient Mesopotamian civilisation (circa: 2500 B.C) whose archaeological and written records reach back to the earliest biblical times shortly after the Black Sea basin was flooded.

At first sight, this approach may be considered pushing the 'universal Lug' concept far too far. However, it is now accepted that the Near East had great influence on nascent Greek culture. For example, the myth of 'Lougalbanda in the mountain cave', it is said, has much in common (stylistically, structurally and thematically) with Homer's 'Hymn to Hermes’, particularly since both works relate to the origin of man's control of fire, domesticating cattle and sacrifice i.e. man becoming encultured.

To those not convinced, I quote from R.B. Onians work which has already provided fascinating snippets of information relating to early European thought:

‘It is remarkable that, with slight variations in detail, the same basic conceptions of the body, mind and the soul, which can be traced in our earliest evidence for the Greeks and Romans and the Celtic, Slavonic, Germanic and other ‘Indo-European peoples are to be seen also in in early Egypt and Babylonian and among the Jews. Influence can not be excluded; but the same phenomena probably led the early Semites, the ‘Indo-Europeans’ and other peoples to the same conclusions. (R.B. Onians. op.cit. xvii. italics added)

O.k. So Onians, writing in 1951, did not categorically state that an influence existed. Nevertheless, he did suggest that all these peoples had the same basic conceptions of the ‘body, mind and soul’. Hence, with all these above suggestions in mind, it seems justified to consider the Sumerian scenario.

Sumerian language is unconnected to Indoeuropean and originated in an area of today's eastern Iraq. Likewise, Sumerian has no apparent cultural link with Indoeuropean. Yet, in common to both peoples was the experience of 'The flood'. This event was witnessed by proto- Indoeuropeans living north of the Black Sea and by Sumerians living in Mesopotamia.

As earlier mentioned (p.14) the 'Hurrians' entered Mesopotamia from the Caucasus during the era of Sumerian and Babylonian empires. They were led by noble, Indo-Aryan warriors who spoke a language similar to Indoeuropean and carried with them their own cultural beliefs and practices. It is thus not inconceivable that 'Lug' and 'Lougalbanda' are related.

In comparing Sumerian and Celtic religions, some similarities are apparent. This is not too surprising, for all peoples experience similar aspects of life the world over: The sun rises and sets; the moon changes through its phases, and we all experience birth and death. Neither is it too surprising, therefore, that mythical similarities existed as both Sumerians and Celts grappled to answer similar existential questions.

Sumerian myths were largely 'creation myths'. In brief, this involved ‘Anu’ the supreme creator and his consort ‘Ki’, the earth goddess, jointly heading a pantheon of Sumerian gods. Ki and Anu had a son, 'Enlil’, and a daughter, 'Ishtar' (or 'Innana'), of whom Enlil was able to separate his parents and thereby form 'heaven' and 'earth'. In so doing, he became a god of the sky controlling the wind, air and storms. In fact, it was he who sent the flood. Ishtar was the goddess of love and sexuality, having many lovers. However, she was rejected by the mortal, ‘Gilgamesh’; as recounted in the Gilgamesh epic. Apparently, gods and humans intimitely intermingled!

Sumerian King lists

A collection of tablets, unearthed by archaeologists at the turn of the twentieth century, have helped provide a Mesopotamian chronology, for on these tablets were inscribed geneaological king lists. No doubt, a severe dose of mythical exaggeration was involved in the composition of these lists, which occurred around the late third millenium B.C., for many of the kings lived exceedingly long lives. As an example, I quote the first portion, taken from ‘version G’, on an octagonal prism tablet found in Larsa, Iraq.

‘After the Kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in . In Eridu, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28,800 years. Alagar then ruled for 36,000 years. The divine Lugal-banda, the shepherd, ruled for 1,200 years’.

In fact, 134 kings are recorded on these tablets and collectively they ruled for a total of 28,876 years. So, yes, artistic licence was liberally applied. The list also blends mythical characters with real kings belonging to later dynasties. The earliest king whose existence can be corroborated from other archaeological sources is ‘En-me-barage-si’. He lived around 2,600 B.C.

Several of the Sumerian kings had names beginning with the prefix 'Lugel', a term signifying ‘king’. This was purely a secular title with no religious connatation attached. These kings are listed below:

Fig. 42

Lugal-banda (ruled for 1,200 years) Lugal-ki-gin (ruled for 36 years) Lugal-gu (ruled for 360 years) Lugal-ure (ruled for 120 years) Lugal-ane-munda (ruled for 90 years) Lugal-ane-mindu of (2525-2500 B.C) Lugal-ada (2359-2352 B.C.) Lugal-zaggesi – the last Sumerian king, overthrown by Sargon I of Akkad.

Lugal-banda was thus an early figure in Sumerian mythology, being the 3rd king of the 1st Sumerian dynasty. Yet various dynasties existed simultaneously in Sumer, which slightly confuses the picture, for it is also recorded that Lugal-banda was the royal successor of 'Enmarkar', the builder of , who was the son of 'Mesh-ki-ag-gasher, who 'disappeared into the sea' and who was the son of 'Utu', the sun god. If this all sounds very reminiscent of Old Testament 'begat' genealogies, we shouldn’t be too suprised for Sumerian 'king lists' were recorded before Old Testament texts were written.

Furthermore, it is also not too surprising that Lougalbanda should have a mythological sun god for a predecessor. In fact Lugalbanda’s son, 'Gilgamesh', the hero of the most famous Sumerian saga, was considered one third human and two-thirds god.

Myths of Lougal-banda revolve around the city of 'Uruk'. There are two of them and these are recounted below. They may be considered the oldest ‘recorded’ myths in human history.

Myth 5: Lougalbanda in the mountain Cave

Lougalbanda, King of 'Uruk', father of Gilgamesh, was an officer in the army of . One day, the two heroes and their army, set off to lay siege to the city of Aratta. This city had mountains of precious jewels and they desired them for Uruk.

On route to Aratta, Lougalbanda caught a fever and retired to a cave to rest. However, his fever rose until it seemed certain that he was going to die. Funeral arrangements were made and his coffin prepared. But Lougalbanda feared dying in the mountains, away from his beloved city, and prayed to Anu and Ishtar to save him.

Anu and Ishtar sent Lougalbanda a dream. In this dream they explained that he must capture an ibex and a bull, then sacrifice them with an axe and a dagger. This Lougalbanda did and consequently his fever abated and he survived. He then set off again to join up with Enmerker who was now laying siege to Aratta.

Myth 6: Lougalbanda and the Anzou bird

Whilst still the mountains, Lougalbanda decided to look for the nest of the mythical Anzou bird. Anzou was truly frightening. He was an enormous bird with a lion’s head and his cry was so terrifying that even bulls and stags ran into hiding when they heard it.

Lougalbanda found the nest high in the branches of a tree, occupied by a baby Anzou chick. He gave the baby some meat, honey and cake to eat, groomed it and decorated the nest. Soon Anzou returned, carrying a dead bull in its talons. At first sight of the nest, fearing that its baby had been attacked, Anzou let loose a screech so loud that even the mountain gods jumped into crevasses to hide. But on seeing its baby unharmed, and the good things that Lougalbanda had done, Anzou befriended him.

Anzou then granted Lougalbanda one wish. Lougalbanda chose to be able to run extremely fast without ever being out of breath. With this wish, Lougalbanda was able to run over the mountains to

catch up with Enmerkar at the siege of Aratta. Enmerker had given up Lougalbanda for dead and was overjoyed to see him.

The siege was not going well and Enmerkar decided this was because he had fallen out of favour with Ishtar. Lougalbanda offered to run to seek Ishtar and seek her favour. With the wish granted from Anzou, Lougalbanda was able to run over the mountains and reach Ishtar in no time. Ishtar demanded that Enmerkar cut down a certain bush near a holy lake, then catch a certain fish and offer it in sacrifice. Then she would allow the two kings to win the war and gain the precious gems of Aratta; the reason for the siege in the first place.

********************************************

Lougalbanda found himself in the wild, barren mountains away from civilisation. Being on the verge of dying he also found himself veering away from mortality. He was thus in a zone between life and death, nature and culture: He hovered between boundaries. By now, we should be getting used to this ‘between boundary’ concept for it has been discussed in many of the myths analysed so far.

Lougalbanda profited from being in this transitory zone. Firstly, by communing with the gods and sacrificing to them the bull and ibex, he regained his health. Then, by his gracious contact with the mythical Anzou bird, he gained the means by which to win the war against Aratta and to capture the gems with which to adorn Uruk. Hence, precious cultural attributes were imported into Uruk as a result of Lougalbanda’s exploits:

Man acquired culture thanks to Lougalbanda. Lougalbanda was a civiliser.

Concerning the three Dumézil functions of sovereignity, war and productivity, I leave it to the reader to decide. Yes, Lougalbanda was a king and warrior who, with his ally Enmerkar, captured the city of Aratta to gain the precious jewels. However, I personally feel it to be stretching the point a little too far to apply the Dumézilian model in this case. Rather, I prefer to view the two myths as dealing with the origin and nature of sacrifice.

18. The Holy Grail

There have been attempts to relate Lug to tales surrounding 'The Holy Grail' and generally the reason has been to show that these tales have Celtic origin. Such propositions are strongly based on ‘the lance’ and ‘the chalice’; objects central to the Holy Grail stories that are said to relate to the ‘spear of Lug’ and the ‘cauldron of Daghda’.

In Irish mythology the ‘cauldron of Daghda’ is one that never needs replenishing. Symbolically it relates to the 'cauldron of regeneration’, which, as previously stated, was used in ancient times for the drowning of human sacrificial victims to honour the Celtic god 'Taranis'.

However, such propositions are not taken seriously. The mythical cauldron (of regeneration) and chalice (of Christ's last supper), are generally considered too different in size, form and function with little, if any, similarity; even if proponents of the 'same origin' theory see equivalences in terms of 'regeneration' (cauldron) and 'rebirth after death' (Christ's chalice).

It is also argued that the myths themselves substantially differ. In the Irish Lugh myths (as in the Loki and Lougalbanda myths), Lugh is a facilitator, facilitating the acquisition of cultural attributes. Central to the Holy Grail tales, however, is the acquisition of knightly virtue. Quite different aspects. In the original 'Christian de Troyes'' version, this quest for knightly virtue follows the adventures of 'Percival', as he blunders from youthful innocence to adult maturity. Such virtue is finally achieved by Percival's spiritual awareness of God's grace, followed by his confession and his taking of the sacrament.

Nevertheless, some Holy Grail supporters continue to equate this tale with the Lug myths; partly due the element of transcendence inherent in both. The Lug myths detail man's transcendence from nature to culture and the Holy Grail tale explore man's transcendence from mundane to spiritual existence. Furthermore, similar metaphorical dualisms are used in the telling of both. e.g. wilderness vs civilisation, beast vs man. Yet, such dualisms are inherent to story-telling the world over, being intrinsic to man’s existence, as so it is perhaps no coincidence that they appear in both the Holy Grail tales and the Lug myths.

The choice is yours.

19. Universal 'Lug'

Lug is to be found all over the world; a ubiquitousness that reflects the Celtic spread. Throughout the different cultures his name and character have undergone metamorphoses and variations are localised. Brief website research shows him to be: A carpenter, mason, harpist, poet, inventor of the arts, enchanter, trickster, goldsmith and physician. He was also a patron of the druids ruling over war, magic, wealth, commerce, re-incarnation, water, arts and crafts, blacksmiths, journeys, martial arts, healing and prophecy. More generally he is simply described as being 'multi-skilled'. He certainly was!

In Europe, the many regional variations include: , Lleu, Lludd, Nudd, Nuada, Luiseach, Ioldanach and Llewelyn. Similarly, a quick skim through the index of ‘The Times Atlas of the World’ reveals the following towns and cities derived from the prefix ‘lug-'.

Fig. 43

LUG LUD LOUG

Lug-Serbia Ludborough–England Loughborough - England Luga – Estonia Luddershall -England Lougheed - Canada Lugano -Switzerland Ludhiana -India Loughor - Wales Lugarèno – Cuba Ludinghausen -Germany Lougrea - Ireland Lugo -Italy Ludington -U.S.A Luggate -N.Zealand Ludlow -England/U.S.A Lugo -Spain Ludogarie - Lugoj -Romania Ludus -Romania Lugton -Scotland Ludvika -Sweden Lugusk -Ukraine Ludva -Latvia Loughor - Wales

Similarly, a quick scan through various dictionaries revealed the following definitions of the word ‘lug’ in English. Apparently, Lug’s talents have spread far and wide!

Fig. 44

‘ Lug’ in modern English

1. A handle 10. to drag, carry 2. A projecting part for lifting 11. to cause an engine to run poorly 3. A box for shipping fruit and vegetables 12. to block a passageway 4. A sail with four corners 13. An unkind remark 5. A wrench 14. A fool or ungainly person 6. A worm 15. Linux user group (acronym)

7. A nut 16. Lego user group (acronym) 8. A bicycle part 17. Lesbians until graduation (acronym) 9. An ear

20. Conclusion - ‘Lug’ in ‘Lugdunam’

It is a few years now since I first arrived in Lyon with my family. I still teach English, with the same company (‘Infolangues’), and I still find the subject of Lug fascinating. Why? Because it has directed me through many research doors where I have been able to quietly plunder acedemic treasures at my leisure. And it’s a fact of life that ‘outsiders’ are more interested in a city’s cultural history than local ‘insiders’.

I also think part of my interest comes from the placement of Roman Lugdunum on an historical time-line. The city’s (Roman) foundation occurred virtually on the divide line between B.C. and A.D. (in 48 B.C.) and mid-way along a time-line of the Roman Empire (500 B.C. – 500 A.D.). And in considering the city’s Celtic and Greek origins, the city’s (Roman) foundation also occurred mid-way between today and the Indoeuropean dispersals. That takes us halfway back to the neolithic age, which then seems not so far distant.

Fig. 45

Indoeuropean Rise of Roman foundation Fall of Today Dispersals Roman Empire of Lugdunum Roman Empire

2,000 B.C. 500 B.C. 48 B.C 500 A.D. 2,000 A.D.

(Approximative dates)

In all that time, humankind has posed questions about his existence: Possibly, according to Professor Geertz (p.54) to satisy existential angst which was acquired with rising consciousness. In fact, looking at the Anatolian archaeological sites and even the French Lascaux caves, we can judge that humankind has always asked questions about his existence: That is, since his neurological ‘thalamocortical system’ developed as an attachment to his ‘limbic system’ and the process of ‘praxis’ came into play (see p.17-19).

Rarely, when we dream, are we conscious of the fact that we are dreaming. But imagine a dream where you suddenly realize, ‘Hey, this is just a dream’. Then your imagination can dictate how your dream unfolds as you create your own dream-state reality. Imagine now a state of being awake when you suddenly realize, ‘Hey, I’m awake’. Then too your imagination can construct an awake-state reality. Such is philosophy.

Plato imagined a similar scenario whereby cave-dwellers saw only their shadows cast onto cave walls by outside light shining in. For them, these shadows were their vision of reality. But for the cave dweller who left the cave and walked into the light, he alone understood that the shadows were only a vague outline of reality. He had developed consciousness. Plato’s metaphor was intended to show that philosophical musings alone were epistemological, for only they could raise awareness and discover true knowledge about the world. Nevertheless, one wonders at what point such philosophical musings began, for whilst anthropologists continue to debate the origin of abstract thought in humankind, cave paintings, rock carvings and burial practises suggest that mankind's neurological make-up had evolved sufficiently well enough by 100,000 B.C for him to muse on existence and the meaning of life. Thus, the search by humankind for an 'underlying rationality to the universe' began at a time when wooly mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers roamed the plains and men sat at cave entrances gazing up at the stars, collectively soul-searching and creating stories to help explain reasons for ‘being’: If I may be allowed to momentarily wax lyrical about it.

What is being discussed, then, is consciousness and the construction of reality. In our unconscious dream-states, uncontrolled imaginations know no limits and images are blended together ad hoc. Should we become more conscious of our dreaming perhaps we could design our dreams with more rationale; though, no doubt we would then lose their spontaneous creativity. In our wakeful state we can and do create – with varying degrees of rationality. We create in the realms of art, drama, music, story-telling, even, some say, in the creation of religious ritual. Rationality is also applied, in varying degrees, in the creation of cultural institutions with their specific rules and codes of conduct; alhough it may require experienced anthropologists to explain such rationalities to other cultures.

Reality is a construction involving consciousness and the most important step for humankind in becoming a unique animal was to develop awareness of his own consciousness. Apparently, other animals do not have this ability. Most likely (see chapter one), this awareness was a gradual awakening rather than an instantaneous eureka moment of: ‘Hey, wow! I’m alive.’

Thus early, pre-historic existentialists, realizing that they exhibited consciousness, began to analyze what this meant with whatever conceptual tools they had to hand, eventually creating symbolic language to push their conceptual limits further. They were not alone. Even today, the question of consciousness still rests an indefinable polemic.

Myths formed part of that symbolic language and the myths examined in this work are symbolic undertakings to recount and explain emergent consciousness. Of course, pre-historic man knew nothing of neurological systems and the notion of ‘praxis’ only first appeared with Aristotle. Nevertheless, the ancients’ understanding was not so far removed from today’s. Both ancient Greeks and Celts, for example, believed that consciousness was an attribute contained within the head as a ‘clan life-force’ (the reason why the head became highly sacred) and they also believed that humankind emerged from chthonic origins – an understanding that is highly Darwinian!

Hence, though individual myths differ, the underlying message is the same: Humankind emerged as a 'civilised being' with ‘consciousness’ from a wild state of nature. Myths may differ in terms of individual elements which detail contexts and characters, but behind this ‘shimera’ they are the same. Manipulation of the individual elements within myths was common within archaic, pre-literate societies. Such is the way oral traditions create new versions of a tale, despite the sociologist Levy-Bruhl once denigrating this practice as 'primitive thought'. More recent approaches regard this ‘myth-manipulation’ as an equally rational process to modern thought. By juggling mythical elements and applying cultural specifics (kinship patterns, subsistence methods etc.), existence is contemplated and in myth-telling, new versions are born. Epistemological and ontological issues are thus contemplated from the viewpoint of myth manipulation.

In examining ‘the Lug myths’ and stripping away embellishing details (the ‘shimera’), various underlying concepts commonly appear. These we can now see below (Fig. 46).

Personal Oratorial Enclosure Mythical dualisms Intermediary Cultural attributes Skills mythical beings attributes gained

Lugh Triplet * Not Lugh, Mother Between kin: half The ‘Formorii’ (§) Agricultural but. Ogmios locked in Tuatha/ half skills, animal (Ireland) who had castle Formorii. Balor – ogre (§) husbandry eloquence fertility From outsider to Giants (§), seals insider.

Llan Lleu Twin * Curse broken locked in _ wren fertility Gryffes on uttering chest Ill-formed key phrase (Wales)

Mac Righ _ _ _ Raven who became wren, mouse, Magical Cathair a handsome man raven, serpent (§) treasures

(Scotland) fertility

Jack the _ _ _ _ Giants (§) bow & arrow, Tinkard beer-making, growing herbs, (Cornwall) tin mining

Perseus/ Mother Perseus: half Meduse – ogre (§) Perseus: fire, Hermes * locked in human/ half god cooking, music, Hermes: Hermes: undergroun sport, animal (Greek) prankster smooth d chamber Hermes: messanger husbandry talking of gods. Flew seducer between domains: sky-earth- Hades.

Mercury Tricephaly _ _ Clean shaven Ram, tortoise, ‘inventor of all young man vs cockeral, snake (§) arts’ (Ceasar). (Roman) * bearded old man Travel guide. Money & trade.

Lugus _ _ _ _ birds shoemaking

(Spain)

Osiris/ _ Thoth: voice Osiris: _ _ Osiris: Thoth * created locked in outlawed universe. coffin cannabalism. (Egypt) Created:Bread, Magical wine,beer, formulae. religious practices

Odin/ Odin: Odin – poet, Loki: _ Odin: Snake, poetry Loki * handsome, sage chained in a Eagle intelligent, deep cave fishing skills (Norse) enchanter Loki: Salmon, horse, wolf, Loki: giantess, sea- prankster serpent

Lugal- _ _ Recuperated Part mortal king/ The Anzou bird Battlefield Banda in cave part mythological skills character (Sumerian) Sacrifice and communion with gods.

Treasures

A number of points stand out in common:

1) Character pairing and tripling occurs in six out of ten cases. (*)

2) Power of spoken word – to create universe, magic formula, seduction, to break curses

3) Enclosure – in castles, caves, coffins, chambers or chests

4) Transgressing of domains – moving between world of gods, men and underworld, (transcosmological travel) including shape changing,,

5) Creation of fertility and practical knowledge by mythical personnage

6) Defeat of chthonic (§) beings – Formorii, giants, ogres, serpents

In many of the ‘Lug myths’ chthonic beings (ogres) were combatted and as a result cultural attributes were acquired. Furthermore, often the mythical personage (or mother) combatting the ogres, first spent time enclosed and then humankind was encultured following release.

Concerning the three Dumézilian functions (sovereignity, war, production): These have been evident within most of the myths explored, depending on the degree to which the categories can be stretched. Perhaps, the more ‘Indoeuropean’ the myths, the more the functions are apparent. The Sumerian Lougalbanda myths, for example, seemed to stretch functions’ defining boundaries a little too far.

The above (points 1-6) generalizations have been drawn from a variety of myths recorded at vastly different epochs in different geographic zones. Yet, historical links between them exist, as discussed. Individually, they all deal with the process of humankind enculturation. Thus, they are all mythical responses to questions concerning the arrival of ‘consciousness’ and ‘being’ (ontology), and to humankind’s acquisition of knowledge (epistemology).

Prehistoric man sitting at his cave entrance, who became ‘aware’ and queried his ‘being’, had little to go on when it came to formulating ontological and epistomological viewpoints. In fact, he had just two things: (1) the skies and natural phenomena, and (2) his visions and sensations. Paleolithic visions were recorded on cave walls, before being recorded in the architectural structures of the neolithic period. Early proto-Indoeuropean religion was largely cosmological with astral bodies and natural phenomena becoming personified; thereby creating godly symbols to explain life and the universe. Both symbols (i.e. gods) and the symbolized (i.e. astral bodies) were highly impressive, even awe-inspiring, and the ancient cosmogonies (origin of universe myths) in which they featured dealt with enormous powers. They are recorded amongst the earliest written records we have of pre-historic religions.

Moving on (in time) to the Ancient Celts and Greeks, consciousness (life-force) became integrated into mythical considerations as the macro-world (cosmos) and the human micro- world overlapped. For whilst ‘life-force’ was an immense ‘cosmic force’ imbuing the universe with a ‘living consciousness’, it was also a psychic power contained within the human head. And whilst ‘cosmic life-force’ spread through the universe as a ‘cosmic wind’, it was also passed between clan members through the rite of ‘receiving the last breath’. And, in R.B. Onians’ words, similar conceptions were also held by other ‘Indo-Europeans’, plus Egyptians, Babylonians and ancient Semites.

The chapter entitiled ‘Etmology of lug’ concluded with a number of suppositions. Namely that the word Lug could (possibly) be derived from water, wind/flight, word, change/upset disturbance and light. In addition, throughout this text, explanatory boxes exploring these key

words have been inserted. These notions are largely derived from the work of R.B. Onians and as I browse through his classicist’s study, one thing particularly impresses me: The inter- relatedness of these terms. Let me explain:

Onians largely concentrated on two ancient Greek terms: ‘thymos’ (θυμιάω) and ‘psyche’ (ψυχή). ‘Thymos’ was considered a vapour from the region of the heart, possibly the lungs, where it was stored in the ‘phrenes’ (φρέυες). It was also considered as ‘consciousness’ and responsible for the senses and emotions. ‘Pyche’, on the other hand, was in the head and considered as the ‘soul’ or ‘life-force’. It thus gave head its sacredness.

Naturally, when you speak you breathe your thoughts. Hence, ‘thymos’ leaves the ‘phrenes’ and exits the body as vapourous breathe. Thoughts, words, breath and vapour were considered intrinsically linked. In addition, for ‘the ancients’, water was a generative life-force (see fig.16). Various cosmogonies held water to be a primary substance and Mankind (homo sapiens) needed water to live. In fact, the words ‘sapiens’ and ‘sap’ are cognates, both relate to ‘juice’ in the chest containing consciousness and intelligence (Onians. Ibid. P.62). The adjective ‘sapient’ means wise. Similarly, the Celts held water goddesses responsible for fertility whilst the Greek muses, who insired poets, were water nymphs.

Perception too was inter-related. For ancient Greeks (e.g. Pythagoras), ‘seeing’ was an action whereby light emanated from eyes to illuminate objects seen. In this context, ‘if looks could kills’ sounds quite plausible and explains the ‘evil eye’. For others (e.g. Homer), ‘seeing’ was receiving ‘breath’ breathed by the object seen. Hence, I perceive = I breathe in. This corresponds with the Hindu concept of ‘prana’.

Admittedly, steam-rolling through Onians’ encyclopaedic work is unjust. Nevertheless, the means satisfies the ends; eliciting conceptual links between the root-terms of ‘Lug’ (wind, water, word, change & light) and ancient Greek conceptions of these terms. In both cultures these same conceptual terms were applied to explain the cosmic world as the human world. According to Onians, this was true of both Indo-Europeans and Mesopotamians.

Fig. 47

Cosmic: Word, water (cosmic life-force), wind (cosmic breath)

☼

۩ Human world: word, water (consciousness and intelligence), wind (breathe)

To re-iterate ,Underworld: there was a con ceptual correlation ≈ between the cosmic world (the world of the gods) and the earthly world (the world of humankind). Displayed above, this parallel is shown as an observable sky-earth link which is transversed by birds and we have frequently discussed the role of Hermes who flew between the two domains as messenger of the gods. We should also recall here the link between ‘word, wind and flight’ (fig. 17). Namely, that thoughts (words) fly on breath (consciousness) between speaker and listener, and that ‘pneuma’ (Gk), ‘prana’ (Hindu) or ‘Holy Spirit’ are the wind or breath of God. In other words, consciousness is communicated to humankind on the word and breath of god, through an intermediary being. This is a very old conception.

Recall that Hermes was a prankster who stole Apollo’s cattle by trickery. Likewise, both Odin and Loki engaged in trickery to gain certain material advantages. Cosmic powers descend to the world of men through intermediaries who belong to both worlds and, in some tales, these ‘gifts’ are transferred through ‘trickery’. This descent of cosmic power to humankind from the gods explains their acquisition of cultural skills. In the case of trickery to acquire these skills, recall too the role of the snake in the garden of Eden.

Then, there is the underworld. This is the land of the dead for those whom the ‘thymos’ and ‘psyche’ (consciousness and life-force) has departed the body: A region of consciousness-less zombie’s. Well, mythologically speaking anyway in which this describes the region once inhabited by humankind before the cosmic wind blew their way, imbued them with

consciousness, and raised them up from their chthonic origins. It is a land inhabited by consciousness-less giants, ogres and all types of frightening monsters: Cultured homo spaiends alter egos.

Well, this is an interpretation gained from my reading of Onians who presented: ‘The Origins of European Thought... also of some basic Jewish and Christian beliefs’ (my italics). It’s a picture that tries to explain early Indo-European reasoning as they mused on ‘human existence’ (ontology). The proof of the pudding, however, is in the eating (‘testability’) and several myths from different Indo-European cultures, and beyond, have been documented in this text with this in mind. Points in common between these myths were listed in Fig. 45. Below (fig. 48) the myths are once more listed with reference to the terms word, watern wind, change and light.

Fig.48

Water (= live Wind/flight Word Change Light giving fluid) (=cosmic (=thought breath) breathed, intelligence)

Irish Lug’s two brothers - Ogmios and E The look of thrown in sea and Bridgit had Balor like the rescued by sea god power of spoken N summer’s sun. word C Lug combats Balor

Welsh Dylan swims away Birds Announcement U - in sea. breaks curse

Scottish - Birds - L -

Cornish - - - T - - Water gods - Wind Gods - logos Deadly look of Greek -Danae and Perseus - Gust kills (=speech, U thrown in sea Acrisius the Meduse breathe, spirit) - Perseus & R Hermes fly

Roman - Mercury flies - A -

Spanish - - - T -

Egyptian Sea surrounds earth - Thoth: power of I _ in cosmogony spoken word

Norse Sea surrounds earth Odin: flies as Odin: power of O - in cosmogony eagle spoken word

Sumerian Sea surrounds earth Anzou bird - N - in cosmogony flies

Omission of terms in the above myths does not mean that the concepts do not exist elsewhere in the native mythologies or conceptualisations. That said, the terms make quite a high frequency appearence in the myths – when viewed collectively. Most importantly, the outcome in each case was the enculturation of humankind. In other words, humankind was infused with consciousness and rose from humble chthonic origins to become civilised. In most case, recall the myths, this involved battles against other chthonic beings.

This event, then, represents humankind's coming of age and becoming 'encultured'. Many myths worldwide describe a similar event for it's memory rests in the dark recesses of humankind's collective consciousness.

______

So, we return to the original question: 'Who was Lug?

'Lug' was a multi-skilled trickster god who used his wits and skills to battle against the forces of the land and bring cultural knowledge to the Celts. He was thus responsible for imparting agricultural and technical know-how; infusing fertility into the land, and raising humankind from its chthonic origins. This he accomplished by being a semi-divine being who traversed the region between gods and men. It was an ability which enabled him to transfer ‘cosmic’ powers to humankind, who consequently gained knowledge and consciousness.

We have seen that the region between gods and men, for Mesopotamians and Indoeuropeans at least, belonged to a tri-partite schema of the universe involving the sky, the earth, and the

underworld. This representation, some argue, originated in paleolitic times when it first outwardly mirrored inner cerebral structure. Later, proto-Indoeuropeans personified natural phenomena and placed them within this tri-partite model. According to Dumézil, the same three-way model was then used to classify society into sovereigns and priests, warriors and peasants who were engaged in issues of sovereignity and ‘other-worldly affairs’, war and production. In addition, we have also seen water, wind/flight, word, change (upsetting disturbance) and light used as metaphors to explore more profond issues.

From early beginnings ‘existential Man’ sought ontological reasons for being. Possibly, as Geertz stated, this was to allay existential angst. Likewise, ‘proto-Indoeuropean Man’ also sought answers to such questions and employed concepts at hand to provide them. These included the above metaphorical concepts; all of which, it has been suggested, are inter-linked and may have etymological links to the word ‘lug’.

As the Indoeuropean languages diverged, so did their cosmologies and cosmogonies. Nevertheless, core concepts such as the tri-partite schema and the above metaphorical concepts remained; albeit varying within new cultural contexts. And thus, as myths were created to help pass on these ideational notions, personifications were introduced, and ‘Lug’ the semi-divine character came into being.

In Gaul, no ‘Lug’ myths remain. The most we have is the report that the Celti-Ligures worshipped a god and goddess named ‘Lug’ and ‘Lugina’, and that they had a son named ‘Luz’ who lived in a cave, as a snail, singing marvellous music. Then there’s the report that that the Segusiaves were descended from a goddess named ‘Segata’, of whom Lug was in love and kidnapped; a story which may have come from Greek or even Egyptian mythology. Furthemore, since Lug material artefacts are severly lacking in France, we really have very little to go on in trying to decipher a Gallic cultural variation of Lug. Perhaps it is impossible.

Nonetheless, and more optimistically, Gallic druids holding the Celtic wisdoms were based in Carnutes (Brittany) before the coming of the Romans and many of them fled across the seas to Britain when the Romans arrived, taking their understandings with them. Thus analysis of British Lug myths gives us some idea of Lug in the Gallic context. Other myths explored in the text have contributed to a more general understanding of the core concepts involved.

A second source on Gallic Lug has been Roman historians from whom we learn that the Romans first associated Lug with Apollo. Then, finding that Lug was multi-faceted, they

hybridized him with other Roman gods. Hence, Lug became hybridized with Apollo, Mercury, and Mars, thereby becoming: 'a sun god'; 'a messenger of the gods’, and a 'god of war'.

Lug’s strongest association, though, was definitely with the Roman god, Mercury, and it appears that the Celts had no qualms about this identification. In which case, symbols applied to Mercury were similarly applied to Lug. The mistletoe motif, for example, a berry (i.e. the god's face) between two leaves, corresponds to both Mercury (in his winged cap) and Lug. Hence, for images known to be Mercury, we can imagine Lug. For example, Lug was thus pictured with a cockerel (Mercury was a herald of the rising sun); a ram (Mercury's symbol of fertility), and a tortoise (Mercury invented the lyre using a tortoise shell).

Mercury (Lug) were also pictured with the goddess Rosmerta who held the corn of abundance (cornucopia) and the divine drink of sovereignty. Rosmerta thus supported Mercury in symbolizing prosperity. Mercury, recall, was the god of trade whose prefix 'mer' appears in 'merchant' and 'commerce'. And in this ‘economic’ context, a culturally specific interpretation of Lug’s ‘trickery’ has been offered: The Gauls were heavily involved in commercial activities and so ‘shrewdness' may be a more appropriate term. Trickery, of course, is one (negative) manifestation of ‘word’.

The Roman’s cleverly used Lug to their advantage by making his yearly festival (Aug. 1st) an occassion when all the sixty tribal leaders of Gaul came to Lugdunum to pay homage to the Roman Empire. This subordination signalled the demise of the Celts in Gaul. Thereafter, Lug went out of fashion and his existence in Gaul became known by little more than French place names.

That Lug brought knowledge and consciousness (metaphorically speaking) down from the celestial heavens above to raise humankind from chthonic origins was feat other Celtic gods (e.g. Taranis and Teutates) were unable to accomplish for his particularity was his semi-divine (half god/half mortal) status. Within other Indoeuropean variations this geneological facet can seen elsewhere e.g. Perseus (Greek) and Loki (Norse). Thus, due to this domain-traversing capacity, Lug was able to transverse the sky/earth realms and bring humankind such attributes as were hitherto normally reserved for the gods. His Greek counterpart in this regard was Hermes, the ‘messanger of the gods’, who flew though the skies with his winged cap. Metaphorically, therefore, the image of a bird is quite fitting when applied to Lug and links

between birds, wind, cosmic breath, mind and consciousness have been dealt with in the text. It also explains the front cover of this work.

The ‘specific’ cultural gifts that Lug transferred to ‘Gallic man’, however, remain quite suppositional for lack of further information; although Caesar did refer to him as the 'inventor of all arts' when equating him with Mercury. Universally, on the other hand, Lug’s gifts were manifold: Agriculture, fishing, commerce, music, metallurgy, arts and crafts, you name it, Lug has been accredited with its invention. Thus, as an enculturer, Lug was the key player and by acquiring knowledge and consciousness humankind learnt to master his environment: He won the battle of wits over nature and freed up time for creative and spiritual activities. In Celtic eyes, at least, he was a cultural hero who explained their origins and life’s meaning.

It has been remarked within this text that Lug’s counterpart, Mercury, was sometimes represented tricephallically i.e. with three heads or phalluses. Should this also have been the case for Gallic Lug, as it was for Irish Lugh, it could be said that he too played all three Dumézilian roles of sovereign, warrior and producer. For sure, the clearest notion we have of him is as enculturer, inventor and agricultural deliverer of the earth’s bounty, as described above and thereby fulfilling Dumézil’s third function. Evidence for his roles as priest or warrior, however, is limited. We have no Gallic Lug myth. All we have is the joint Teutates/Lug sculpture presenting Lug, according to J.J. Hatt, as a ‘coiffered young warrior’, plus the Chalamiers inscription, ‘I prepare thee for Lug’, offering to Lug the spirits of dead warriors in return for victory. And as to a sovereign role in the Gallic context, we have nothing.

I would have liked to finish this work with a nice Gallic myth of lug. In this respect, I have failed. In fact, I don’t even have a nice, genealogical tree of Gallic Lug to present, as I did with Irish Lugh; unless we assume that the Irish myth was completely derived from the Gallic myth - which is possible. But what has been derived is Lug’s central, pan-celtic role as enculturer and bringer of fertility. This, I suggest, applies equally to his role in the Gallic context where his biographical details are vague

Perhaps today we take enculturation for granted. But there was a time when the memory of humankind’'s emergence for his pre-nascent state was recalled through the telling of myths. And for the Celts, 'how it happened' was partly explained through mythical tales of Lug.

Bibliography

Ashley, M British Kings and Queens Robinson 1999

Audin, A Lyon, Miroir de Fayard 1979

Barber, C The English language Cam.Uni Press 2000

Barber, R The Holy Grail Penguin 2005

Barraclough, G (ed) The Times Atlas of Times Books 1978 Of World History Berger P.L & Sociology of religion and Robertson 1969 Luckmann, T sociology of knowledge

Besnard, V & Guide Bleus: Rhône-Alps Hachette 2004 Houck,S (eds)

Brunaux, J-L Les Religions Gauloise Editions Errance 2000

Cunliffe, B The Ancient Celts Penguin Books 1997

Eluère, C L’Europe Des Celtes Gallimard 1992

Firth, R Religion : Routledge 1996 A Humanist Interpretation

Gabut, J-J Lyon, Magique et Sacré De Boree 1993

Geertz, C The Interpretation of Cultures Fontana 1993

Green, M The Gods of the Celts Sutton 1986

Godineau, C Religion et societé Editions Errance 2006 & Vernier, P en Gaule

Graves, R Greek Myths Cassell & Co. 1958

Graves, R (ed) New Larouse Encyclopaedia Hamlyn Publishing 1959 of Mythology Group Ltd.

Gimpara, B Two Celtic Waves in Spain 1943

Hayward, J Atlas historiques des Celtes Les Editions Autrement 2002

Heald, H (ed) Chronicle of Britain JL international publishing 1992

Honderich, T (ed) The Oxford companion Oxford Uni. Press 1995 To philosophy

Hobsbawn,E The Invention of Tradition Cambridge 1983

Hutton, R The Pagan religions of Blackwell 1997 the ancient British Isles

Jurmai, R Physical Anthropology West Pub. Co. 1994 Nelson, H

Kerrigan, M Le Berceau de la Civilisation Duncan Baird 1997

Kondratiev, A Lugus: The many-gifted Lord The IMBAS Journal 1997

Lechte, J Fifty key contemporary thinkers Routledge 1994

Lewis, I Ecstatic Religion Penguin 1971

Lewis-Williams, D Inside the Neolithic Mind Thames & 2005 & D.Pearce Hudson

Litaudon, J-C President of the archaeological personal communication 2008 Federation of the Loire.

Medore, H Histoire de France, Aedis 2003 Les Dirigeants

Mithan, S The Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition Cam.Uni Press 1994 in ‘The ancient mind’ eds. Renfrew,C and Zubrow, E.B.W

Morris, B Anthropological Studies Cam. Uni Press 1996 of religion

Onians, R.B. The origins of European thought Cam. Uni. Press 1941

Norma, P Dictionnaire historique des Celtes Maxi-livres 2003

Pamour, B Les plus belles balades Pelican 1994 autour de Lyon

Pelletier, A LVGDVNVM Presse Uni. De Lyon 1999

Russell, B History of Western Philosophy Routledge 1946

Schmidt, J Les Gaulois contre les Romains Perrin 2004

Simon-Lenana, C Guide de Lyon: Le cherche midi 2005 & R. Dararc des faits diverses

Brochure

PAR : Le religion Musee Gallo-Romain Rhône Le Département des Gaules Exhibition brochure (30/06/2006 – 7/01/2007)

Lectures

A series of lectures, given by Professor Sir Colin Renfrew, provided much interest, reflection and inspiration; particularly for chapters one and two. These can be found and listened to on: http://www.rsa.org.uk/audio/

Internet Sites http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral1.htp http://.ancientroute.com/cities/Lyons.htm http://www.altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa102902a.html http://www.atributetohinduism.com/article_hinduism/100.html http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/haudryreligion.html http://www.cs.uu.nl/~wilke/aquasite/lyon/index.html http://www.en.wikipedia.org http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Bel/id/100513 http://www.geocities.com/indopaganism/celticvedic.html http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2000/2/200.2-16.shtml http://jeanjacqueshatt.fr.fr/01-time-2-myth-et-dieux-texte-seul.pdf http://jfbradu.free.fr/celtes/lyon/lyon.htm http://www.lyoncapitale.fr/anciens/mag-231-1.html http://www.manygods.org.uk/articles/essays/lugnasadh.html http://www.orbillet.com/encyclopedia/G/Gaulish.language.html

http://www.penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/ http://www.st-thom.com/lugdunum1.htm http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/Celtic/ekeltoi

****************************************************************