Re: Norse vs Irish Myth By: AwakeTooLong / Knowledgeable
Post # 3 Oct 02, 2014
I do not mean to downplay the frequency with which women were warriors in viking culture, as I'm sure it was a frequent occurrence given their culture in general, but it is worth noting that the study in question suggesting that "half" were female was, I believe, of a single battlefield.
There are some interesting points you've made but I just have a small correction. ^^
Nessie of Loch Ness has indeed been around for hundreds of years (first documented report was from the 6th century). However, before the Surgeons photograph, she was very rarely described as serpentine. In fact, if you look at loch monsters from all across Scotland, most of them have a corresponding tale about a kelpie (as is the case with Nessie) or another fuath. Research on the subject suggest that the reports of a long neck coincide with public awareness of creatures like plesiosaurs. (Sorry, as a Scot, I get nit-picky about local myths. It's a bad habit but I can't help myself).
The article was certainly very interesting though! The bullet points especially made for a great side by side comparison. It would be interesting to see how far the comparison could be extended. Might do some more research on this, thank you for the information!
Re: Norse vs Irish Myth By: Brysing Moderator / Adept
Post # 5 Oct 02, 2014
Not only myths, but all knowledge travels from culture to culture, country to country. Our English alphabet is actually Arabic. Our basic Arithmetic is Indian. Geometry is Egyptian,Greek, Roman. The Celts spread all over the place, as did Vikings, and Romans. Ink and paper came from China; as did gun-powder, fireworks. And by far the most Viking remains excavated in Britain were male!
I applaud the article and I can definately see the similarities behind the two, although you could take it one step further and apply this to pantheons in general. Just about every pantheon that I have run across has striking similarities when you strip away names and the nit-picky particulars.
Jesus from the Christianic religion can be compared to Dionysus, the sacrificed king from the Celtic belief, or Osiris in the aspect of the "sacrificial God". You can compare the Celtic dark goddess figure Caillech with Kali from the Hindu belief, which are believed, in some circles, to have stemmed from the same Indo-European group that split and migrated in two seperate directions. You have the horned gods, Pan and Cernnunos (or Herne) which again tie into the Christian faith as the staging block for the modern day Devil which is a combination of the demonization of the horned gods, Lucifer (the fallen angel) and Satan (the tester of faith). Which, in retrospect, Satan, Lucifer, and the Devil is a triumvirate just like The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
Take pretty much any religion and make a triangle of the lead divinity and those beneath them, then compare it to another and the similarities are remarkable. If you throw angels into a triangle with Yahweh, then you will get pretty much the same results. Heck, if you go back far enough, before the Edict of Milan which brought so many different belief systems into Christianity in some sort as the Roman empire was expanding, and before the beginning of "civilization" in the Stone Ages you reach the nomadic cultures. All across the globe, you have evidence that, during this period, the main figure of worship was the "mother goddess". Ishtar, Astarte, Nathor....all goddess figures ranging from 2000-4000 B.C.E. These figures show up as early as the Venus of Lespugue from 25000 B.C.E. to the Venus of Willenorf at an outstanding 30000 B.C.E.
I love the theory of Christopher Penczak on the matter, in which viewing the divine is like viewin a large diamond. You can either see the diamond as a whole or mostly whole, such as the monotheistic religions do, or you can see it for all of its facets, such as the monotheistic beliefs do, but you are, in essence, looking at the same thing. Tie that in with the immortal words from Shakespear about a rose and its name, and it gives good food for thought.
Re: Norse vs Irish Myth By: Lark Moderator / Adept
Post # 7 Oct 02, 2014
I think we have to also look at when the stories were written down, especially in Ireland. Remember that the Vikings came to Ireland and conquered much of the country around 400 AD. Many of the Irish myths were not written down until after the Viking incursions. So the Christian monks who were recording these tales were exposed to both Viking and Irish myth cycles. There was bound to be overlap in the stories based on this mingling of tales being recorded by those who were too late to hear the actual oral tradition of Celtic stories.
Interestingly these parallels do not seem so much present in British and Welsh myth cycles; although it is true that we know little about the British myths and even less about the myths of the Continental Celts.
Both the Celts and the Germanic tribes of the North were descended from the Proto-IndoEuropeans and their myth cycles may reflect their common origins.
The idea that St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland is an interesting tale in that Judeo-Christian myth has always associated snakes with Satan. There is no evidence that actual snakes ever existed in Ireland. I suspect that the tale of the snakes was one that early Christians brought with them based on Biblical teachings.
It's a very interesting comparison though. And I agree that with care one can find information about one culture/religion by examining those around them.
Re: Norse vs Irish Myth By: Brysing Moderator / Adept
Post # 8 Oct 02, 2014
Oh,yes! British myths and legends. Big problem there with England.
Ireland (in the beginning) one Race one language. Welsh, the same. Scotland, the same. But England? So many invaders and settlers, traders! Myths of Cumbria, Northumbria, Kent, Cornwall. Every county different. From Romans, Celts, Saxons, Jutes, Angles,Vikings, Norman French. A bewildering array of myths and legends. And the one and only legend of the whole of England is the legend of St George; and that is not even English!
Anybody researching myths and legends in England are driven slightly mad!
Even the English language is so mixed up. English was basically a heavy mix between tons of different languages (more so than practically any in the world) because there were so many different people there. If you even compare the structure of English to just about any other, English is a really weird messes up language.
Re: Norse vs Irish Myth By: Brysing Moderator / Adept
Post # 10 Oct 02, 2014
Well, language is not really about myths and legends. But I will add this about England. If you got four people together from different parts of England; one from London,one from Liverpool, one from Newcastle, and one from any village in Yorkshire. None of them would understand a word spoken by the other three! Unless they spoke "Standard" English. I am not meaning regional accents; but dialect! Ask a man from the South of England to point to " a chebble", he could not! Ask a man from Newcastle the same question, and he would immediately point to a table.
Re: Norse vs Irish Myth By: Personified / Knowledgeable
Post # 11 Oct 03, 2014
This is a great post, White! I'd actually read a discussion not too long ago in a Heathen community regarding similarities between Lugh and Loki. A discussion was being held due to the fact that there's a few deities within the Norse pantheon that can sometimes be confused with Loki (Logi/Loge, and Utgard Loki (a jotun with the same name)). The similarities are definitely present. I think Brysing and Lark covered some interesting perspectives about that.
Re: Norse vs Irish Myth By: WhiteRav3n / Knowledgeable
Post # 12 Oct 11, 2014
Thank you everyone for making this thread awesome! I was a bit shocked by the mass of replies!
When it comes to women and war, it is hard to tell with what evidence we have. Hopefully soon more will be uncovered.
As for the Loch Ness, I apologize for using a Scottish creature. In my defense, I never said it was Irish, just that the mythology is similar.
My reason for this is actually not your typical website information on the creature but on my own research of folklore and spirits of Europe. Ness was originally perceived to be a water spirit known in Gaelic as the an niseag. Generally speaking, a kelpie. This was supposed to be a water horse that turned into a woman. But here is where it get's interesting, the water spirits of the German's called the nixe were water wyrms that could also turn human. Then, the name jumped across to Britain where they have the Knuckers, also water serpents. The "Nicor" in Beowulf. If you look at their not so far neighbors, the "Knuckers" were water serpents. This makes me believe that the folklore crossed big time and it had nothing to do with a dinosaur.
Say it with me Ness, Niseag, Nixe, Nicor, Knucker...the linguistic trail seems legitimately plausible.