> From: CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of J J
> Maybe *leugh came from Lug and that's why it was (mistakenly) called
> the GOO. See, I can theorize too, and I'm just an idiot.
While theorizing may be quite funny, it can hardly replace serious study and
is pointless without first possessing a certain amount of knowledge about
the existing facts - which you, as yet, seem not to have.
Celtic-l is not especially an academic list, but I would prefer if you would
be able to defend your statements by more than "common sense" (which, in
most cases, isn`t that common and most often makes no sense at all).
Let`s take a short look at some of your statements:
> But using my common-sense (I know you don't believe in it, :)), it
> seems that Lugu is a Sun-god, a god of light (leuk), because there
> are so many Lugdunums, founded for important gods obviously.
A) It is not even clear if the Lugdunums are named after Lugus at all. Read
Maier`s article in Ériu 47, 1996 "Is Lug to be Identified with Mercury?"
B) Even if it were a fact that these Lugdunums were all named after Lugus,
that still doesn`t indicate that he is a sun-god. There is no direct link
between important god and sun-god.
C) Even if these places were named after Lugus, this doesn`t necessarily
tell us that he was an important god, only that he was a god which seemingly
had a certain connection to certain places. As such, even if it were that
these places were named after him, it could well be that they were named
after him because he was a minor spirit that protected houses from catching
fire. Naming a place where many wooded structures stand after a spirit that
protects from wood catching fire seems like a perfectly reasonable idea. Or
maybe these places were craft centers, and thus were named after the god of
all arts (which is something we even would have some evidence for).
Thus, your common sense already fails the first test of reason.
> But really!: let's name the Hill-fort after the <God of Oaths>... "I
> don't think so, Gefuntorix, let's dedicate it to the goddam shining
> Sun-god!!" (Cries of drunken agreement...)
Why not name it after the god of oath? Honour was a very important concept
in Celtic culture, and being caught lying or breaking ones oath meant
complete loss of social status - even for a king. Thus, having a god of
oath, and naming places after him, makes perfect sense. So, why name a place
after a goddam shining sun-god who is mostly irrelvant to society, when you
can name your city after the god which stands for honour and the keeping of
Yet again, your commonm sense fails the most simple of tests.
> Point 2: I don't think the Keltoi had a <god of oaths>. You've read
> the Punic Wars, right? (Did I mean the Gallic wars?)
Now, what do you mean? The Punic wars or the Gaulish wars? And what has this
to do with the matter in question at all?
> Is there really evidence for a GOO? Is seems to me (I'm havin' a
> common sense attack again!), that people (now and forver) swear on
> the highest power lyin' about, God or Jesus or the Devil ... Or
Well, there is quite some evidence for an Oath god, whatever your common
sense might tell you. Seemingly, people did not, now and forever, swear on
the highest power they could - at least not, if there was a specific one
that watched over oaths.
Sorry about that, but your common sense attacks seem not to work,
all the best anyways,
Raimund Karl <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Research Fellow for European Archaeology
Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies
National Library of Wales
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru, UK