The Role Of Goddesses And Women In Celtic Society.

[Lacertus]

Religion and magic had a central place in the life of Celts. As in any Pagan society there were many Gods: god of light, god of wisdom, oratory and writing ( The Celts had their own runic alphabet), god of sea, goddess of war, and a countless number of demigods

[Lost_Warrior]

Wow, that was very well done I really don't know that I have too much to add.

 

I notice though that you put alot of emphasis on women. True, the women played a large role in Celtic society and religion, but many of the prominent Gods (Odin for example) were men.

[Ursus]

Nicely done, Lacertus. Thanks for the contribution.

 

 

 

 

 

but many of the prominent Gods (Odin for example) were men.

 

Odin was a Norse god. I believe you may mean Lugh. But yes, you're right, there is a danger in overemphasizing the extent of women's rights in Celtic culture and religion. Some bad scholarship along those lines helped create some New Age women-centered, goddess spiritualty cults that are based on an overly romanticized idea of Celtic matriarchy.

[Lacertus]

But yes, you're right, there is a danger in overemphasizing the extent of women's rights in Celtic culture and religion. Some bad scholarship along those lines helped create some New Age women-centered, goddess spiritualty cults that are based on an overly romanticized idea of Celtic matriarchy.

 

I'm agreed but I advanced my opinion only and this theme was honey to my soul. I know this viewpoint is not holds much favour nevertheless it has right to be. It is impossible to write and look back to bad scholarship.

It is better then Celtic nationalism for example or something like that.

[Skarr]

But yes, you're right, there is a danger in overemphasizing the extent of women's rights in Celtic culture and religion. Some bad scholarship along those lines helped create some New Age women-centered, goddess spiritualty cults that are based on an overly romanticized idea of Celtic matriarchy.

 

I'm agreed but I advanced my opinion only and this theme was honey to my soul. I know this viewpoint is not holds much favour nevertheless it has right to be. It is impossible to write and look back to bad scholarship.

It is better then Celtic nationalism for example or something like that.

 

Lacertus, I do agree with a number of your points. I think some of the tribal societies were pretty equal in regard to women's rights as well as men's. Unfortunately, as most of them left scant records or none, we can only speculate as to their status. From what I understand, marriage was sometimes performed between groups of people and I guess, it didn't really matter who the children were. As long as the mother could be identified (obvious), the husband she was married to would claim paternity, irrespective of who exactly the father was from a biological viewpoint as Celtic women were quite free in that respect and could choose their own partners. I think it was not matriarchial in that sense but more matrilineal and New Age theories overemphasize the matriarchial aspects.

 

Women were respected because of their ability to bear children and this is evidenced in their worship of the fertility goddess. I don't think it conferred an ability for women to necessarily rule the tribe, although it could not be ruled out either. One sex did not automatically dominate or exclude the other and I think it was more of a partnership and fertile women were not only respected but their progeny were readily accepted into the tribe. I don't think we had the monogamous kind of relationships either as most of the tribes were fairly small and moved as a group. Having strict monogamy would lead to internal strife and disputes, which a nomadic tribe could simply not afford as it would threaten their very survival. You are right in that Caesar did comment on the group marriages in his commentaries but again it is a very passing reference as with other references. Plus, there were so many tribes spread all over and they would come together in one horde.

 

To a certain extent, the disunity of the various tribes helped the Romans a great deal and they in fact, recognized this as something that was useful to Rome as many chiefs, many tribes and many leaders would ensure that they could never use their numerical superiority to any advantage. Unfortunately, over a period of centuries, the barbarians also learnt the value of compromise and to present a united front and in the 5th century AD, we have the tribes forming alliances and making a combined attack, which ultimately destroyed the Empire in the west.

 

In my book, I do cover some of the openness in the barbarian society and contrast this with the Romans. It would have seemed strange to the Romans, coming from their obviously western approach, which we have adopted also to a large extent, although the Romans themselves could be considered fairly liberal in their attitudes compared to our more modern conservativeness. This is not to say that there were also extremes in the Republic, as we had the 'boni' on the one hand (people like Cicero singling out Clodia and others for moral attacks) and on the other hand, we had these very open, public affairs from the men, with Caesar and Antony being the most active on that score. Women were therefore in a considerably different position from the 'barbarian' women who had a lot more freedom to choose and could move in spheres within their narrow society that could not be contemplated by even the most liberated 'Roman' woman.