”No, not really. It merely informs me that they aren't. actually, specialists in the field of Celtic Studies. Rather, her degree was in Mythology, rather than Celtic/Irish Studies. They probably were not aware of some of the more recently oublishedresearch, or articles, such as that by Prof. Herbert.”

Oh puh-leez! Now you’re accusing her entire examination committee of incompetence?! I think a much more parsimonious explanation is that *your* judgment on the matter is unsound.

”I suggesrt youy read Herbert's article bvefore passing judgement. She is a wildly, well-respected, authority in this suibject matter. In fact, she is the Asdid. Prof. of Early and Medieval Irish at a majour Irish University. She teaches alongside such Celtic Studies lumineries as John Carey, etc.”

I *have* read it. I know who Herbert is.

”And,no, Herbert doesn't use any proposed confusion between Her, and other Goddesses, for the basis of her thesis. She simply reviews the literature-- and then some!-- without the war-goddess prejudice”

As I remember it, her thesis was that the confusion has arisen because the Morrígan has been equated with Badb, while in her opinion the Morrígan should be seen as equating with Anu/Danu, with Badb being only her aspect as the raven of battle. Her argument rests largely upon the very shaky foundation of the etymology of “Morrígan”—a subject on which there is no solid consensus. Epstein’s argument also has an etymological component, but she favours the etymology to which most other academics also tend to lean.

”No, my criticism is that she's using a long-since out-dated thesis; she didn't really question her thesis, which is always somethign that I look for (so that one is aware of varying academic perspectives). Also, we must not forget what a PhD requires., and I simply didn't see enough thought in this diss. Actually, it was simply more like a critical research project, than anything used to earn one their PhD.”

And you are dead wrong. In fact her thesis has a fair amount in common with Herbert’s own: they both see a connection between the Morrígan and Anu/Danu, they both admit that the Mediaeval interpretation of the Morrígan was overwhelmingly negative and that this is inconsistent with many passages in the myths themselves, and they both feel that this points to a fundamental misunderstanding among the Mediaeval writers—their differences are in the nature of the misunderstanding. Herbert seems to believe the misunderstanding hinges on the erroneous equation of the Morrígan with Badb, while Epstein believes that the misunderstanding is based in the inability of the Mediaeval writers to understand the Morrígan’s actions as seen through the eyes of Iron Age pagan Irish. Specifically, what the writers saw as urging men to mutual slaughter, foretelling doom, and ghoulishly feasting on the flesh of the slain, the pagan Irish would have seen as performing the roscad, augury before battle, and delivering the the fallen warriors to the Otherworld—all positive actions. In fact delivering the roscad , foretelling the outcome of battle and proclaiming the victory were all roles that the druids fulfilled and were clearly seen as positive. The other difference between Herbert and Epstein hinges on the different etymologies that they prefer—and in this there is no clear consensus among scholars, and if anything the majority of academics lean towards the etymology preferred by Epstein. Herbert uses the etymology Morrígan equals “Great Queen”, and this is largely the basis of her equating the Morrígan with Anu/Danu (with Badb being an aspect). There has always been skepticism about this derivation, and among philologists especially, this derivation is seen as ‘folk etymology’. Epstein follows the lead of Stokes who derives the first element, mor, from the same root as English mare, as in nightmare, hence “Queen of Phantoms” (the root being presented by Pokorny as * mora). Kim McCone has argued for a slightly different etymology for morrígan, based on Indo-European *m—r-o-s ‘death’, from the root *mer- ‘to be killed’, although he agrees that the words listed by Pokorny under* mora are related to Morrígan, all descending from *mer- via an Indo-European n-stem. Following McCone’s etymology, the compound would mean “Queen of Death,” or perhaps, “Queen of the Slain.” The issue is far from settled, but most scholars lean towards Stokes etymology, thus spelling the name Morrígan rather than Mórrígan.. With this etymology it seems much more likely that rather than Morrígan being equivalent with Danu and Badb being a specialised aspect, Morrígan is equivalent to Badb and they are both representing an aspect of Danu.

”Well, we can scratch Cernunnos off that list, because the onyl evidence for Him we have is His name on an inscriptiom, rather than any actual myths. So, until one has given a great many of Indo-Europeanm deities, i remain skeptical. ;o)”

There are actually three inscriptions with names that are tolerably close to Cernunnos, and a great deal can be gleaned from the iconography. And upon reflection, I think you can probably add Ephesian Artemis, Rhiannon and Epona to the list as well.


”Indeed, there is NO-- I repeat "NO"!-- archaeological evidence that links cattle raiding to Sovereignty, nor to the Goddess thereof. “

You can repeat it until the kine come home, it doesn’t make it so.

”However, you forget, I believe, there thre's no uncontested translations in which She is actually yhr start-- or cause-- or a Cattle Raid; thus, She's no War-Goddess according to Epstein's criteria.”

You don’t seem to have any idea what Epstein’s criteria *are*. Nowhere does Epstein state that the Morrígan causes the cattle raid, or that this is a necessary criterion. As a patron of heroes, she inspires martial deeds (through the roscad or perhaps even through outright possession in a kind of frenzy or fury) and carries the fallen heroes to the Otherworld in fulfillment of their destiny. These are the criteria which Epstein uses to define war-goddess (on the basis that war in the ancient Celtic world typically took the form of the raid—especially the cattle raid—which was an institution by which men--and women in some cases--proved their martial abilities and leadership qualities, acquired the cattle that defined and determined social position, and--in the case of the inaugural raid especially--asserted and demonstrated sovereignty over those who either yielded cattle in tribute or were unable to prevent their seizure).


”But, "Tutelary" isn't primarily used, academically-speaking, to refer to a Protection-Deity. Rather, it is used to referto any localized Patron Deitiy from non-Classical antiquity”.

And Epstein explicitly admits this role—her entire thesis is an attempt to reconcile this role in the myths with the negative interpretation of the Mediaeval writers.

”Nor is there any evidence for the Celts practiving excarnation (although the Neolithic of Old Europe certainly practiced this, as well a the Skull-Cult!).”

In fact there is plenty of evidence, much of it from contemporary writers. Of particular interest, for example, is this fragment from Silius Italicus: “To these men death in battle is glorious; and they consider it a crime to burn the body of such a warrior; for they believe that the soul goes up to the gods in heaven, if the body is devoured on the field by the hungry vulture”. Claudius Aelianus describes the Arevaci in a similar way: “The Arevaci (...) insult the corpses of such as die from disease as having died a cowardly and effeminate death, and dispose of them by burning; whereas those who laid down their lives in war they regard as noble, heroic and full of valour, and them they cast to the vultures, believing this bird to be sacred”. Basically, the information transmitted by Silius Italicus and Aelianus coincides with that provided by Pausanias on the Gauls during his expedition to Delphi in the year 279 BC. The Celts consecrated those who died fighting far from the home country in this way (excarnation) because according to their beliefs, wild animals belonged in the divine world
There is also plenty of iconographic evidence. Two Numantian tomb paintings are absolutely explicit: a dead fighter, lying on the ground, is approached by a vulture, which devours him. The ritual of exposure is unquestionably seen on the stele from Zurita, in the Cantabrian territory as well. The fibula from Drieves is an example of animal androphagy, a core concept of Celtic eschatology. The foot of the fibula comes in the shape of a head, with a helmet and torc, while the arch shows a symmetric scene in which the other head is devoured by a lion grabbing it between its paws. In the middle of the brooch is a circular torc, with clear eschatological connotations, alluding to the destruction of a part of the physical subject and to his integration into the supernatural world. In the Celtiberian coins of Sekaiza type the horseman occupies a clear position of heroic ascensus, as in the funerary stelae, and the bird of prey, together with the wolf, seems to be playing the role of connection with the Otherworld.
Finally, there is the evidence from archaeology proper. Thousands of excavations have allowed us to draw for Gaul a striking scarcity of interments, especially in the latest stages before the Roman conquest. The removal of flesh before interment is clearly attested in sanctuaries like Ribemont but the enormous deficit of interments, especially in the late La Tène period, has been explained, at least partially, by the exposure of corpses with the consequent destruction of most of the skeleton. In the British Isles, most of the human remains dating from between the end of the Bronze Age and the Iron Age have been uncovered in ditches, silos and dwellings. The exposure of corpses was the dominant funerary practice: 95% of the population was disposed of in an archeologically invisible manner (Matthews, K.1999. Death into life: population statistics from cemetery data. In A. Leslie (ed.), Theoretical Archaeology and Architecture, pp. 141-161. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.). The wooden structures on posts that characterize many settlements of this period were polyvalent platforms; one of their functions was the exposure of the dead (Ellison, A., and Drewett, P.
1971. Pits and post-holes in the British Early Iron Age: some alternative explanations. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37: 183-194.)