It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Starseed theory

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Obviously, I would have problems with anyone dating any script as pre-Sumerian/Akkadian.

Harte


Can I ask what difficulties do YOU have with any script predating Sumerian/Akkadian finds? I am only asking.

And your link, was quite funny. Mr Flavin missed quite a bit of how Dr Fell reached his conclusions. Making assinine remarks pointing out some New World Drawing from a 1000 years ago was of a Horse. Flavin forgets to note, those who scribed it had come from the Old World. The Book was America BC

Navigating throughout North and South America and leaving their 'signs' to mark the route is common, and nothing strange. It took place all over the Globe.

Oh yeah, Flavin discredits man's ability to navigate over water. That's right. Now I get it. They were too stupid to figure it out. Well Mr Flavin can tell that to the Minoan's.

But this does explain your point of view on many things.


Ciao

Shane




posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
That was strange. a Double post.

Ciao

Shane





[edit on 9-5-2006 by Shane]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
Can I ask what difficulties do YOU have with any script predating Sumerian/Akkadian finds? I am only asking.

The problem with Ogham is it is represented by series of straight-line slashes. If you use your imagination, Shane, I'm sure you can see that straight-lines can be made and grouped together for other reasons than script, and even accidentally.

Concerning Sumerian, people coming out with theories about scripts that pre-date cuneiform by more than a thousand years have a large burden of proof to meet. Alphabets do not just spring up overnight, only to fade away after a few years. These supposed ancient scripts must have a history, IOW, to be taken seriously. Like hundreds of years of usage showing the evolution of the script. The location of usage must evolve as well. I mean, some guy sitting in a cave could certainly invent his own script to write the words he wants on his cave walls, right? But if he's the only one that uses it, the discoverer of that script millenia later is going to have an extremely hard time convincing anybody that it's a language. No evolution of the script, no widespread usage of it, no extensive usage over time, etc.

Now, if an ancient script was found from, say, 5,000 BC as was claimed, and it could meet at least a few of these requirements, then we would have at least some reason to believe that it was a language of sorts, anyway.

But slash marks can't possibly rise to this level of evidence, because they can be left behind by some guy sharpening a stick.


Originally posted by ShaneAnd your link, was quite funny. Mr Flavin missed quite a bit of how Dr Fell reached his conclusions. Making assinine remarks pointing out some New World Drawing from a 1000 years ago was of a Horse. Flavin forgets to note, those who scribed it had come from the Old World. The Book was America BC

Flavin missed nothing, and he did credit this book by Fell.
Flavin offered abundant evidence that the "Ogham" script Fell "translated" was drawn by a cowboy working for the "Box and a Half" ranch. The evidence Flavin gave could just as easily been found by Fell, except Fell hardly ever researched any of the "engraved scripts" he was asked to "translate," nor was he very interested in seeing these carvings in situ. If he had, he wouldn't have made such a fool of himself.


Originally posted by ShaneNavigating throughout North and South America and leaving their 'signs' to mark the route is common, and nothing strange. It took place all over the Globe.

Marking a trail is hardly the same as devising and using an alphabet for the purpose of making a written record in the language being used.


Originally posted by ShaneOh yeah, Flavin discredits man's ability to navigate over water. That's right. Now I get it. They were too stupid to figure it out. Well Mr Flavin can tell that to the Minoan's.

What evidence do you have of the Minoans great navigational skills? Are you aware that Fell and the others are trying to place Ogham into the neolithic age? What has that to do with the Minoans?


Originally posted by ShaneBut this does explain your point of view on many things.

I've explained my point of view several time here at ATS. It is this - If I am to believe that a thing might have occurred, it is necessary that I see evidence that the thing might have occurred. Not proof, but evidence. That is certainly not too much to ask. I've said this several times here, in many different ways. Why is it, then, that you have to read "between the lines," so to speak, in my last post in order to somehow discover my point of view, which I find myself reiterating openly almost daily at ATS?

Harte



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
MMmkay... a few comments, here:


Originally posted by NJE777
Druids: the Gauls had been enemies of Rome for 3 centuries - the word Druid is omitted from narratives and yet Diviciacus was certainly a Druid known to Cicero.


Possibly because the Gauls didn't call their priests "druids."

There wasn't a single, unified religion of the Celts. They held many gods in common, but they didn't worship the same gods in different areas. Caesar does describe Druids, as does Cicero. But the druids would not be of that much importance to the soldier or statesman, because they were the equivalent of our modern localministers. Soldiers and historians seldom dealt with religious leaders. They weren't the group around which resistance formed (that was the chiefs and war leaders) and few of them seemed to seek public power or contact with the Romans and other cultures.



Later in Book VI, he finally describes the Druids. (Caesar that is) Now from this article, it actually states Druids were on the defensive even before the Roman period and refused to commit to the main body of their doctrine in writing.


I'm getting a little confused here, because I'm interpreting this as you believe that Druids and Celts are the same thing (which isn't so.)


Now this is one of the reasons for the decline of the Druids. The Druids were already using the Greek alphabet...so as you can see from this and other sources Caesar did mention them....


I believe your source indicates that the Celts were using other alphabets. Whether or not the Druids (or some of them) did was another matter.

The article on Skepdic has more information:
skepdic.com...

As does Crystallinks:
www.crystalinks.com...

As to Ogham being a global ancient script, this really isn't so. Yes, I've seen the "evidence" produced and it's not convincing (actually, it's pretty lame and if you look at the rock surface and compare to actual ancient rock art, the "Ogham" is clearly modern rather than ancient.) Ancient peoples used dots and lines to mean many things. Here in the Southwest, dots were commonly used to represent peyote buttons (and the peyote ceremony was a very important and ancient one.) Atl-atls are also drawn as lines, and lines can indicate a tally of some sort here in North America.

Lines and dots mean many things. Words and writing are sacred things, and if they had been using Ogham, we would also see this carved and painted on many things in the area where one sample of script ws found (as is the case in the British Isles.)

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Byrd]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Byrd noted


I'm getting a little confused here, because I'm interpreting this as you believe that Druids and Celts are the same thing (which isn't so.)


Hi Byrd

You've baffled me!!??

Can you elaborate on '(which isn't so.)'?

Both of the Links you noted, seemed to confirm they are.
I would as well, but no one listens to me.


And Nat

I was wondering how you were doing dating the Celts, and the language?

I was thinking about Dr Bradley's response, and I am starting to wonder if the Celts had anything to do with Stonehedge and it's construction.

I was reading Byrd's Links and there is something that is becoming clear. The Celts, as a determined peoples with a will to survive even to this day, could have been migrating into Isles prior to Stonehedge being built.

Of course, with a thought like this, I am going to see all types of references to scholarly thought by dead people, who may have an answer, and most likely to the contrary, but so be it.

Have a good night Nat
And to you as well Byrd

Ciao

Shane

[edit on 11-5-2006 by Shane]

[edit on 11-5-2006 by Shane]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

I'm getting a little confused here, because I'm interpreting this as you believe that Druids and Celts are the same thing (which isn't so.)


I only believe so because of the info I have read. From your perspective, Druids and Celts are completely separate? So, from this it appears that much of the info I have read where it says Druids are Celt Priests is a load of crock? The information I have read then, has been a complete waste of time and energy.

Henceforth... the Druids are not affiliated in anyway with the Celts and ogham is not the Celts or Druids secret alphabet. Better still, the Druids are just figments of our imagination perpetuated by moronic individuals who write books and produce dis info!

With respect to Druids and ogham, the starseed theory is pure tripe! So, no need to address it any further. No point discussing the pleiades mythology either, cos thats just oral tradition and of course held in contempt.

Why I see no need to continue with the discussion then. Pity though, was quite interested in the crop circles/ogham similarities.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777

With respect to Druids and ogham, the starseed theory is pure tripe! So, no need to address it any further. No point discussing the pleiades mythology either, cos thats just oral tradition and of course held in contempt.

Why I see no need to continue with the discussion then. Pity though, was quite interested in the crop circles/ogham similarities.


Hello Nat

Sorry to again, find the enlightened are stifling thought.

I saw interesting comment from a member discussing the Rudeness aspect of several posts lately, but there was also a notation indicating that if you are swimming against the current, and have been brated enough to clearly show the Topic was useless, then maybe you shouldn't be posting. What is that about??

Well, pardon me, if I am able to have original thought. And excuse "The Brilliant" that have come before us, because most of those with that ability have produced the society we have today.

But I hope you do continue this, since it was of interest. If not, I'll see you around somewhere in here.

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Sorry Shane and others

I just feel so frustrated and yes, I feel as though I am swimming against the current.
In all honesty, I really feel there is something to this.

Nothing conclusive has been brought forward that proves absolutely that ogham alphabet is not ancient or that the Druids did not have the knowledge of the golden age. The only reason Ogham is dated where it is now, is because the scientific world had something tangible to go with and any other thoughts are discounted until they have something concrete to update the scientific worldview. How many times has the scientific worldview changed? It is constantly evolving. Do we have all the answers??? No we don't!

We know that the Druids were secretive and there is little evidence that the Druids existed. I should think it is logical that if they were secretive, there would be a lack of records. It was my understanding after reading copious amounts of literature that the Druids were affiliated with the Celtic tradition, not in its entirety, perhaps, I have oversimplified the history and religion of the collective Keltoi? And, I have learnt since starting this that more than one person mentioned Atlantis...(sure, its contentious...but isnt everything?) Plato's dates to me arent conclusive. The other thing I learnt and have considered is the great deluge may have only affected the mediterrenian as Shane orginally offered. After reading, I feel this is possible. Literature notes the flood, we know that much was destroyed.

I feel there is enough evidence to be at least open to the possibility of the ogham/Druid connection and ties to Atlantis/Hellenic period.

I have tried to show logically that a + b = c not (x + y) - ( b x a/c) = ?

Anyway, I apologise for the earlier post... I have decided to continue to swim against the current, as long as my energy permits of course.

cheers
Nat



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777
...the starseed theory is pure tripe! ... No point discussing the pleiades mythology either...


Now yer gettin' it! This I can certainly agree with.



Originally posted by NJE777
Why I see no need to continue with the discussion then. Pity though, was quite interested in the crop circles/ogham similarities.

Well, there you go again. Now, I can't agree with you on this part.

I do not believe that there was ever any culture in the Med. or elswhere that can correspond to Plato's description of Atlantis. I have no problem with people dreaming up possible previous civilizations in the area about which we currently know nothing, however. That is, as long as they're not placed into the distant stone age.

The huge megaliths around the Med. have yet to be attributed to any particular civilization (some real anthropologists are calling these people the "Megalithic Culture" unless I misremember.) To me, that's enough to say we don't know everything.
But these giant stone structures don't have Ogham scrawled all over them, nor any other particular script.


Originally posted by NJE777Nothing conclusive has been brought forward that proves absolutely that ogham alphabet is not ancient or that the Druids did not have the knowledge of the golden age.

Nat, this is a vacant argument, and you know it.

How could one possibly go about "proving" that Ogham is not ancient? Or what knowledge the Druids did not possess?

After all, my signature notes the very real nature of evidence - it says that absence of evidence is not only....

Well, you can read it yourself.

Harte



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Hang in there Nat, it would be good if a few more decided to post in this thread as it seems that your research is only receiving negative feedback from some. I wish i had more to add to the discussion but i have no real knowledge to impart at this time though i stand ready to dive in if it arrives at a point that i can contribute. Btw swimming against the current actually makes you stronger so it is not a bad thing.

Cheers
M4S



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Possibly because the Gauls didn't call their priests "druids."



Toatal bs Byrd. I read somewhere that there was a Gaul druid who made a magic potion for two warriors called Asterix and Obelix. You really do need to read more authoritive literature. (just kidding in case you hadn't noticed).

Cheers
M4S



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

That is, as long as they're not placed into the distant stone age.

But these giant stone structures don't have Ogham scrawled all over them, nor any other particular script.

Harte


Couple of Questions Harte

Please let me know what the Distant Stone Age means to you?

14000 Years ago? 12000 Years ago? 10000 Years ago? 8000 Years Ago?



And not all ancient works are covered in Graffiti. The Great Pyramid comes to mind.

In spite the fact that every piece of work, (Temples, Pyramids, Pillars, as well as every possible nook and cranny) are covered in Graffiti in Egypt, there is none in the Great Pyramid.

With the Absence of Evidence theme, does this imply you feel 'others' are responsable for it's construction, as I do, and if so, who?

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane

Originally posted by Harte

That is, as long as they're not placed into the distant stone age.

But these giant stone structures don't have Ogham scrawled all over them, nor any other particular script.

Harte


Couple of Questions Harte

Please let me know what the Distant Stone Age means to you?

14000 Years ago? 12000 Years ago? 10000 Years ago? 8000 Years Ago?


The first two are probably too "distant" for acceptability in terms of even logical discussion, in the absence of any evidence.

We have a lot of evidence of what humans were doing during this period from 14,000 years ago. Yet there is none that suggests any higher civilization existed.

I would consider, as serious conjecture, only civilizations immediately predating what we know of the Babylonians, around 5,000 BC (your "8,000 years ago" would be included in that.)


Originally posted by Shane
And not all ancient works are covered in Graffiti. The Great Pyramid comes to mind.
In spite the fact that every piece of work, (Temples, Pyramids, Pillars, as well as every possible nook and cranny) are covered in Graffiti in Egypt, there is none in the Great Pyramid.

I stated that the "Megalithic Culture" (if it existed as such) hasn't been dated. The post was in context with the discussion on the age of Ogham. I don't know about you, but for myself, I wouldn't consider dating any Ogham very much earlier than the earliest examples of it we can find. There are none associated with the megalithic structures. That was my point - Ogham - not the age of these (or any other ) structures. So the absence of grafitti in the Great Pyramid (actually, there is some Egyptian grafitti in the G.P.) is beside the point. There's no Ogham found in the G.P. either.


Originally posted by Shane
With the Absence of Evidence theme, does this imply you feel 'others' are responsable for it's construction, as I do, and if so, who?

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is the battle cry of pseudohistorians. If you examine that statement, you will no doubt see how inane it really is. My signature is intended to convey the fact that I do not subscribe to this illogical world view.

There is currently a vast "absence of evidence" for all kinds of imaginary things. Things that we know are made up (Superman comes to mind.) Are we to consider that the "absence of evidence" for Superman's existence in no way indicates that Superman probably doesn't exist?

In fact, regarding the Great Pyramid, there is a fairly large mass of evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that the current estimates of the age of the pyramid is pretty much correct. But even if there was no evidence at all for this, that still would not indicate anything other than the possibility that it was built by "others." "Absence of evidence" means there's no evidence. When you start getting into "coulda," then there's no limit to how far-out and absurd the conjecture can become.

That is why I say that I wouldn't date the origin of Ogham to much earlier than the earliest examples of it we find. Sure, Ogham "could" date to 250,000 BC - given Hancock's (and others) insistence on misunderstanding the meaning of "absence of evidence." But why should we think that it does date that far back? And if we postulate a quarter-million years for the age of Ogham, why not a million, or 10 million years, or why not 10 billion years? All of these time frames also exhibit a complete "absence of evidence" for Ogham. Or in Nat's words, "Nobody has proven" that Ogham doesn't date that far back. Eventually, one must come down to Earth, draw a line, or whatever metaphor you choose. See?

Harte



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Now to Nat's Topic and the premise.

From my seating in this discussion, I believe ogham is at least 3000-4000 Years Old, from reviewing items. I have found some indications this date could extend to 7000 years old, but from a Prime Language or Root Language. Today, we understand Ogham as a 'Celtic' language, but it has changed along with time.

If it 'Changed' then thats fine. Let see where it could have come from
If we find it was unique to Hibernia, thats fine as well. Then that's it.

There is Ogham in Spain dating prior to the Commonly Accepted Time for the Ogham of the Celts. We have established the Celts came from the Iberian Pennisula and Migration into Ireland may have occured as early as 3000 BC. The Ogham in Spain is not exactly as it is found in Ireland, but maybe considered part of the evolution of this language. You read it the same, except, (If I understood this correctly) there is a 'P' missing from the one alphabets.

Several Photos from the Castellano region for example
www.vigoenfotos.com...
www.vigoenfotos.com...

As noted I believe, if we are to at least honestly review and inspect the aspect of Language, it is a ever changing thing. Is this the language prior to the Celts moving from Espana or the Iberian Pennisula into Ireland? I'm not Barry Fell, so I can not say.


Now I trust I dont get a page full of posts describing the next part as some nut bar, as seen when mentioning Mr Fell, but reviewing PIE Culture, I ran across someone considering this, but understood, Ogham was the end result. A Common Background, but evolving to Ogham, as in the case of the Celts.

Ms Marija Gimbutas expected (at least Linguistically) the path of the Ogham could be traced, and outlined this her work in 'The Language of the Goddess'. She effected the Scholarly, and changed the ways things were look upon, by using linguistics along with someother USEFUL TOOL called, (I pause for effect), Traditional Lore. Some of her works and efforts are attested to in the following.

And everyone can read. She of course had detractors, as well as many extremely knowledgeable supporters, so please don't go there. We get it.

Your can review about her and some of her work here.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

And this is for you NAT

Take a good look at the Kurgan_Hypothesis above and glance at that map in the Wiki Page. ZERO IN on that Origin.

Now again, look to this map I gave you earlier in this post. We were discussing, the Spainish conx (Dr Bradley), and we were tracing back the Celts.

en.wikipedia.org...:Caucasus03.png

Hmmmmmm

Something to Consider?.......It does make you wonder.
Something as Evidence?.......Provokes curiousity for certain.
Something to Dismiss?.........One always could I guess


As an aside Harte

I am happy to see YOU partaking. I appreciated your last few posts, and I look forward to discussing beliefs and thoughts with you here, and other Topics any time.

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
wow, yanno I just had to share with everyone my amazement at what just happened to me just now!

I decided to look up ogham using one of the databases relying on my uni password and lmao...not only does it bring up a list of articles for me but underneath it also lists:

Subject Terms - view other documents related to these subjects

Alphabets (193)


-- History (15)


Celtic Languages (8)


Druids (6)


farout...ogham, Celts & Druids...why look at that!!

hmmm off to read some more tripe I guess... ooo I am really starting to love tripe!




The Celtic Druids of England kept a secret language in which various elements in their natural surroundings, including trees, were used to develop an alphabet. This secret language also had mystical connotations that helped them to communicate with the spirit world through these sacred trees. As each had a different energy, it was used in magic to cure and receive advise from the spirits, as well as communicate with others through runes made from the wood of each of these trees.

In North America, trees were also held sacred by the peoples of the First Nations. As many trees of the Druids are not indigenous to the entire North American continent, substitutes were adopted using local trees sacred to the indigenous people of the various areas of North America. The following table explains the meanings and relationships of both the original Celtic Druids and North American alternates applicable to the Prairies of Canada and the Great Plain States.
Source: North American Ogham: Celtic Wisdom for the Prairies and Central Plains. Prairie Garden (Annual 2006): p35(2).


oh and as I read this one, I thought to myself how Sir E Sullivan became anything credible at all, especially since he is writing tripe about tripe. Oh beg my pardon! He is actually Sir Tripe ...







[edit on 13-5-2006 by NJE777]



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
hmmm

this is interesting:

what do you think?


BY STEALING tricks from evolutionary genetics, linguists have cast new light on how languages evolved in Europe. They suggest Celtic arrived in Britain around 3200 BC in one wave, rather than two as widely thought.

To track the evolution of IndoEuropean languages, first spoken in Europe around 8100 BC, Peter Forster of the University of Cambridge and Alfred Toth of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque charted how a set of 35 words changed over time in bilingual Celtic-Latin inscriptions from a range of regions (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/ pnas.1331158100). "We applied DNA analysis to language," says Porter.
Source: Just once for Celtic. (In Brief).(Brief Article). New Scientist 179.2402 (July 5, 2003): p20(1).


How shocking!! New Scientist putting tripe in an edition! Just shocking that they would rely on conjecture ... but spose its relative because of the DNA results...?
I am wide eyed and bushy tailed at the mo...just gobsmacked really...oh but this only represents the Celts...and this doesnt apply to the Druids? Oh thats right, the Druids are not ancient...and they are only figments of out imagination.

hmm oh and just wonder why the term 'ancient Druids' is used if they are not ancient? ...Maybe its another loosely applied term? And when we consider reconstructionist groups...they are reconstructing something from some other point in time? Otherwise they would be called 'constructionists' um? but 're' really changes the meaning, doesnt it?


While debates about precisely whose native type the Druids actually represent were never fully resolved, yoking them with the Bards and Ovates, transformed the Druids from malevolent figures into poet-priests, peacemakers, and seekers of wisdom, worthy of emulation. The Druids were presented to the public as a group dedicated to virtue, embodying a system of belief worthy of application in any age, a native British culture that was intrinsically valuable and even progressive.
Source: "In the eye of the light": ancient Druids and international influences. Shawna Thorp Lichtenwalner. Wordsworth Circle 36.1 (Wntr 2005): p9(3).


oh and this is totally insane! I am moving to Austria!! lol


GIANT MONOLITHS have been erected alongside several stretches of highway in Austria notorious for their high accident rates. Austria's transportation authority hired druids to create the rock patterns in a secret two-year trial, after failing to reduce accidents with more conventional approaches. Made of white quartz, the pillars weigh one tonne each and, according to the druids, restore the natural flow of "earth energy." During the trial period, the number of fatal accidents fell from an average of six a year to zero.

Scientists are skeptical of the claims. But the transportation department is extending the project, paying the druids about $650 for each assessment.

www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/10/1060454083125.html

Source: Druids save Austrian motorists.(Alter Notes)(Brief Article). Alternatives Journal 29.4 (Fall 2003): p4(1).


oh wow...now I find that really hilarious!! oh but regardless of the fact Austria paid the Druids, it is only, afterall reproduced in the Alternatives Journal.....
oh and even the trial was held in secret lmao


Ogham:


"the occult manner of writing in use amongst the ancient Gaedhel"
Souce: On Ogham Pillar Stones in Ireland.
Hodder M. Westropp
The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 2. (1873), pp. 201-205.


And Gaedhel is Viking myth?


The history of the Vikings in Ireland is told by a number of sources, including the Annals of Ulster, the The Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters (Annála Ríoghachta Éireann), the Annals of Clonmacnoise, The War of the Gaedhilwith the Gaill (Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh), the accounts of Ibn Ghazal in Arabic, and in sagas and stories by the Vikings themselves.
Source: www.vikinganswerlady.com...



www.sacred-texts.com...
further reading on Gaedhel & the Celts...







[edit on 13-5-2006 by NJE777]



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
Now to Nat's Topic and the premise.

From my seating in this discussion, I believe ogham is at least 3000-4000 Years Old, from reviewing items. I have found some indications this date could extend to 7000 years old, but from a Prime Language or Root Language. Today, we understand Ogham as a 'Celtic' language, but it has changed along with time.

If it 'Changed' then thats fine. Let see where it could have come from
If we find it was unique to Hibernia, thats fine as well. Then that's it.

There is Ogham in Spain dating prior to the Commonly Accepted Time for the Ogham of the Celts. We have established the Celts came from the Iberian Pennisula and Migration into Ireland may have occured as early as 3000 BC. The Ogham in Spain is not exactly as it is found in Ireland, but maybe considered part of the evolution of this language. You read it the same, except, (If I understood this correctly) there is a 'P' missing from the one alphabets.


lmao...the p was always missing from the ancient alphabets... nobody dared mention the p letter cos back when Adam was a lad, it had the same effect as running water when you are busting! rotflmao



Ms Marija Gimbutas expected (at least Linguistically) the path of the Ogham could be traced, and outlined this her work in 'The Language of the Goddess'. She effected the Scholarly, and changed the ways things were look upon, by using linguistics along with someother USEFUL TOOL called, (I pause for effect), Traditional Lore.


Oh thank you Shane!...loved the 'pause for effect'... he he


Something to Consider?.......It does make you wonder.
Something as Evidence?.......Provokes curiousity for certain.
Something to Dismiss?.........One always could I guess



Had to respond to this Shane cos it was sooooo fine! Really! Jumping up and down clapping my hands furiously... dito...brilliant!!




posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777

The Celtic Druids of England kept a secret language in which various elements in their natural surroundings, including trees, were used to develop an alphabet. This secret language also had mystical connotations that helped them to communicate with the spirit world through these sacred trees. As each had a different energy, it was used in magic to cure and receive advise from the spirits, as well as communicate with others through runes made from the wood of each of these trees.

In North America, trees were also held sacred by the peoples of the First Nations. As many trees of the Druids are not indigenous to the entire North American continent, substitutes were adopted using local trees sacred to the indigenous people of the various areas of North America. The following table explains the meanings and relationships of both the original Celtic Druids and North American alternates applicable to the Prairies of Canada and the Great Plain States.
Source: North American Ogham: Celtic Wisdom for the Prairies and Central Plains. Prairie Garden (Annual 2006): p35(2).

oh and as I read this one, I thought to myself how Sir E Sullivan became anything credible at all, especially since he is writing tripe about tripe. Oh beg my pardon! He is actually Sir Tripe ...


Nat,
I admire your enthusiasm, but I think it's causing you to lose your place.

The above was not written by Sir Edward Sullivan in the book of Kells (in which he provided some commentary content in a 19th century reproduction of.) No, far more likely that this silly "magical tree sprite unicorn" nonsense is from the other reference listed in your "source" (Prarie Garden: Annual - 2006 issue)

The other reference - Year of Moons, Season of Trees: Mysteries & Rites of Celtic Tree Magic. is a "New Age" Druid/Wiccan mishmash of superstitious hogwash. Suitable, I suppose, for a round of Dungeons and Dragons played out by a gaggle of pale-skinned out of shape teens that are getting moldy from lack of sunlight.

It took some serious, serious digging, but I finally found some info on this silly book - a review. The entire contents follow:

Year of Moons, Season of Trees by Pattalee Glass-Koentop. 1991. Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul, MN. Softcover, $14.95.
- Reviewed by Muirghein

This is a book of lunar rituals, based upon the Celtic Tree Calendar, Beth-Luis-Nion system. Pattalee provides a good overview of the calendar/tree system, and talks a bit about the seasonal rituals and ritual work in general.

There is some good information in here, but I suggest you treat her rituals as a base for your own rather than using them as they are written. Her rituals, while pretty, don't really have any substance to them. There is no meaning behind the words. For instance, I was thinking of using the Hazel ritual, in which two of the symbols are the Pegasus and the Unicorn. The first is mentioned in the sentence "When the Pegasus is in flight and wings beyond our vision, and the salmon hide the fruit of the Hazel..." The second is found in the sentence "...I give the purity of the Unicorn, Friday and Venus..." What does this mean? How are the Pegasus and the Unicorn relevant to the Hazel moon? Nothing is explained, nothing is understood. This is empty symbolism. True ritual should speak to your unconscious, should lead you to a greater realization. This one didn't. It just left me confused. Now after some digging into Robert Graves' The White Goddess, I found the meanings behind the Pegasus and the Unicorn, and discovered how they related to Hazel moon. I was then able to write a full, in-depth ritual using these formerly empty symbols.

Lesson: by using Pattalee's rituals as a guideline and doing some additional research on your own, you can come up with something that will actually speak to you and to your unconscious.

The link to this review can be found at: faeriefaith.net The name says it all.

The above-linked page has a thousand links to articles that appeared in something called "The Hazel Nut." Peruse them and you can probably find that Ogham was actually used by paleobacteria in the primordial soup.

Harte



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777
hmmm
this is interesting:
what do you think?

BY STEALING tricks from evolutionary genetics, linguists have cast new light on how languages evolved in Europe. They suggest Celtic arrived in Britain around 3200 BC in one wave, rather than two as widely thought.

To track the evolution of IndoEuropean languages, first spoken in Europe around 8100 BC, Peter Forster of the University of Cambridge and Alfred Toth of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque charted how a set of 35 words changed over time in bilingual Celtic-Latin inscriptions from a range of regions (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/ pnas.1331158100). "We applied DNA analysis to language," says Porter.
Source: Just once for Celtic. (In Brief).(Brief Article). New Scientist 179.2402 (July 5, 2003): p20(1).


How shocking!! New Scientist putting tripe in an edition! Just shocking that they would rely on conjecture ... but spose its relative because of the DNA results...?
I am wide eyed and bushy tailed at the mo...just gobsmacked really...oh but this only represents the Celts...and this doesnt apply to the Druids? Oh thats right, the Druids are not ancient...and they are only figments of out imagination.

Your external source concerns language, not alphabets or even Ogham, so I don't see why it's soooo exciting to you. How long do you suppose people have been speaking to each other?

I found the rest of your post quite interesting, but also beside the point. Your sources not only fail to place Druids in ancient times, they don't even attempt to integrate the Druids into Celtic society, which was Byrd's point, I believe. Also, where did Ogham go? I thought we were talking about Ogham here.

Harte



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

I admire your enthusiasm, but I think it's causing you to lose your place.


um? place? where? huh??


The above was not written by Sir Edward Sullivan in the book of Kells (in which he provided some commentary content in a 19th century reproduction of.)


hmm fancy that...the fact that the citation clearly states info for the article came from Sir Tripe??? so perhaps, I need to contact the powers that be and tell them the reference source is wrong...according to Harte? Hmm guess you know more than ExpandedAcademic... huh?


Peruse them and you can probably find that Ogham was actually used by paleobacteria in the primordial soup.


oh absolutely, but hey, it is ancientpaleobacteria in the ancientprimordial soup....



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join