The Language of the Leubingen Community-Unetice Culture Part 3

 In this essay I wish to discuss the language spoken by the people of Leubingen and its subsequent development. The development of language in the Unetice cultural areas is inextricably linked to the DNA of their populations. As Gustav Kossinna demonstrated in his The Indo-Germanics: An Outline: Part 1: The Proto-Indo-Germanics and The Origin of the Germanics: On the Method of Settlement Archaeology (both translated into English from German by Trevor Sutcliffe), a material culture in its entirety is ultimately linked to and is the possession of the people who created it and the same can be said for language, in my opinion.

                       'Sharply defined archaeological cultural areas correspond unquestionably

                        with the areas of particular people or tribes.' (Kossinna's Law)

In other words, a unified culture is the product of a unified ethnicity, not withstanding that individual elements of that culture may be present in other ethno-cultures through trade or copying. The key word to emphasise here is unified. I believe that DNA studies are finally vindicating Kossinna's theory.

Returning now to the issue at hand, the language spoken by the Unetice culture or more specifically the community at Leubingen. In 1950 BCE, the approximate date of the Leubingen burials, the Germanic and Celtic languages did not yet exist, but obviously the ancestors of those who spoke those languages did exist and so did the ancestral language(s) of Germanic and Celtic. Proto-Celtic, the hypothetical original language of the Celtic dialects did not arise until about 1300-800 BCE, and Proto-Germanic is even later at 500 BCE to 200 CE. Thus Proto-Celtic (southern branch of Unetice) broke away from Proto-Indo-European (Proto-Indo-Germanic, as it is known in the German speaking world) much earlier than Proto-Germanic (northern branch of Unetice) and for this reason Celtic civilisation is much older than the Germanic.

Proto-Celtic started to emerge with the Urnfield and the early Hallstatt cultures. Prior to this point in time the ancestor of Proto-Celtic is an early Northwest Indo-European dialect, from which Proto-Germanic and Proto-Italic also emerged. An alternative name for 'North-West-Indo-European' (NwIE) is 'Italo-Celtic-Germanic'. This was the language likely spoken by the inhabitants of the Unetice Bronze Age community at Leubingen. I believe that it would be appropriate to call this language-'Celtic-Germanic'. Proto-Germanic started to emerge with the Nordic Bronze Age and Jastorf cultures. 

Just as Proto-Celtic and Proto-Germanic developed from NwIE so did the peoples themselves, the Celts and the Germanics, and this is reflected in their similar DNA, consisting of shared Yamnaya derived steppe ancestry, Neolithic European Farmer ancestry and Western Hunter Gatherer ancestry. It is the Yamnaya ancestry, the largest shared element which was the Indo-European speaking component and is reflected in R1b and R1a lineages. Across the Germanic and former Celtic speaking worlds these two haplogroups are dominant, most especially R1b which is shared by people of Germanic and Celtic ancestry. Both Proto-Celts and Proto-Germanics descend from the Bell Beaker, Unetice and Tumulus cultures. By the time that the Germanics and Celts developed into separate and distinct cultures their genetic admixtures changed slightly but the shared deep ancestry remained as it still does today.

The cause of the breakdown of NwIE is due to the subsequent geographical isolation of the Proto-Germanics with the onset of the Nordic Bronze Age, creating different trade networks from the Proto-Celts with their Urnfield and Hallstatt networks. The dramatic sound shifts which affected the northern branch of the Unetice culture was responsible for the development of Germanic into a separate language (Grimm's Law, Verner's Law, et cetera). As Proto-Germanic and Proto-Celtic developed into separate languages so did their material cultures along with slight changes in genetic admixtures.

The Unetice culture is a fascinating one as it represents a culture from which both the Germanics and Celts descend from and is thus worthy of more study and discussion, which I intend to continue (the gods willing) on this blog.

Family Groupings of Unetice Leubingen Burials

 Geneticists have identified five distinct multigenerational family groups from the DNA of the 46 burials from Leubingen. The DNA of the 'prince' is unobtainable. His burial stands apart from all the others due to the prominence of the tumulus and its rich contents. By comparison the rest of the burials were clearly of the non-elite mass. Nevertheless a social hierarchy can still be distinguished from the siting of the common burials and their juxtaposition to the princely burial as well as the individual grave goods. By way of illustration I shall use my own 13 DNA sample matches from these burials.

A — R1b‑L2	LEU060, LEU041	Paternal family
B — R1b‑P312/U152/L151	LEU024, LEU025, LEU040	Extended paternal clan
C — R1a‑Z645	LEU031, LEU009	Paternal family
D — U5/V7/H2b	LEU046, LEU039, LEU059	Maternal kin cluster
E — T2b11	LEU050, LEU031	Maternal family
Ungrouped	LEU007, LEU023	No kinship links

As you can see from the above table, one of the sample matches (LEU31) appears in two family groups via both his paternal and maternal haplotypes. Two of the sample matches (LEU007 and LEU023) are unrelated to the five families.

Family Group A

The princely grave (Fürstengrab) sits slightly to the north of the centre of the cemetery. Family Group A is situated the closest to the prince (82-115ft away), buried in the northern cluster of graves, indicating that they had the highest status in the community after the prince. My two matches in this group were very closely related, id est father and son, paternal uncle and nephew or paternal half brothers (different mtDNA). As there was a generational difference father-son or uncle-nephew are the more likely relationships. The grave goods of LEU060 included a bronze awl or pin, a small ceramic vessel, some flint tools and remnants of textile or leather. LEU041 was buried with a bronze knife, a ceramic pot, a bone or antler tool and some pins.

Family Group B

This family were located in the central and eastern sectors of the cemetery. Like Family Group A they were located close to the princely tumulus (130-180ft away, not as close as Group A) and enjoyed a mid to high level status, which was slightly less than Group A's.There is some evidence of a decline in status with the later generations. The grave goods of LEU024 included a bronze dagger, a ceramic vessel, a bone or antler tool and some small personal items such as pins. LEU025 was buried with a bronze awl or pin, a small ceramic pot, a stone tool and some textile traces. LEU040 was buried with a bronze knife, a ceramic vessel, a bone implement and some minor personal items. My three DNA matches within this group share a common paternal ancestor but their familial relationships were not as close as Group A's and were more multigenerational. LEU040 is representational of the oldest branch of the paternal lineage of this group. LEU024 and LEU025 had a closer genetic tie but were not as close as brothers. It is likely that they were cousins, uncle-nephew or granduncle-grandnephew. It would be more correct to refer to Family Group B as a 'clan', rather than a nuclear family. This demonstrates that they had a long and established respected local lineage.

Family Group C

My two DNA sample matches in this group shared a common paternal lineage but were not as closely related as Group A. Their likely relationships were either paternal half brothers, paternal cousins, uncle-nephew or granduncle-grandnephew. This group had a modest but respectable social status. The grave goods of  LEU031 included a bronze knife, a ceramic vessel, a bone tool and some personal items such as pins. LEU009 was buried with a bronze awl or pin, a ceramic pot,a stone tool and some minor personal items. Group C were buried in the southern cluster of the cemetery, 230-295ft from the Fürstengrab, much more distant than Groups A and B. Both of my matches appear to have moved into the community as adults and had a Corded Ware ancestry (R1a-z645). This makes Family Group C a migrant family.

Family Group D

Unlike groups A,B and C, Family Group D was a maternal kin group. Their relationships were either second degree in nature, id est aunt-niece, grandmother-granddaughter, maternal half-siblings or maternal cousins and third degree, id est first cousins once removed or grandaunt-grandniece. Three of my DNA matches belonged to this group. It would be helpful to break down the individual possible relationships separately.

LEU046-LE039:

Second degree maternal relatives.

LEU046-LEU059:

Third degree maternal relatives.

LEU039-LEU059:

These three women were a maternal kin group, not sharing a direct maternal lineage but extended family of the third or fourth degree. 

This family group are clustered together in the western part of the cemetery, associated with the lowest social level and situated 280-360ft from the Fürstengrab. LEU046 was buried with a simple ceramic pot and a bone tool. LEU039 was buried with a small plain ceramic vessel and LEU059 buried with a plain ceramic pot. None of these graves contained any bronze items. Their lack of any expensive grave goods and their burial so far away at the periphery of the cemetery is indicative of being of the lowest social status and being on the margins of the community and lacking a paternal family structure.

Family Group E

This group was buried 200-295ft away from the Fürstengrab in the southern and south-central part of the cemetery and their grave goods are indicative of a middle level status in the local hierarchy.

LEU050 (female) was buried with an undecorated pot, typical of the Unetice culture and functional in purpose, a small bronze pin or awl and a bone tool. LEU031 was part of this family group through his maternal ancestry but was buried with his paternal relatives in the group C cluster. 

Ungrouped

My two ungrouped DNA matches were not part of any of the five family groups at Leubingen and were buried on the periphery of the cemetery. LEU07 was buried 295-395 from the Fürstengrab on the north-northwest periphery and his grave consisted of a solitary plain ceramic vessel. These factors indicate that this individual was of a low status. LEU023 was buried 295-395ft from the Fürstengrab on the eastern periphery. His grave goods were likewise very meagre, consisting of a plain ceramic vessel. Like LEU07 this was a low status individual, poor in resources and having no kin, being buried on the very edge of the cemetery, marginal to the society both in life and in death.

My Personal Genetic Connection to the Unetice Culture

 I will be posting further essays on the fascinating subject of the Unetice Culture of central Europe in the coming days and weeks, having already posted two recent essays. Before I proceed with this ongoing work I wish to explain my own connection to the Unetice Culture or as it is known in German, Aunjetitzer Kultur, one of the most advanced human cultures of prehistoric Europe, stretching from the German Harz mountains into Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria. 

As many of my old readers will know, my late mother's ancestry is rooted in the Harz mountains, where she was born in 1918 in a small village called Langelsheim, near Goslar in Herzogtum  Braunschweig (Duchy of Brunswick) which since 1946 has been in present day Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony). I know from what she told me in general about her ancestry that it was rooted in the Harz region so it comes as no surprise to me to learn that I am genetically related to 14 of the 46 recovered bodies from Leubingen in Thüringen, less than 30 miles away from the foothills of the Harz. Interestingly, geneticists were unable to obtain sufficient DNA from the princely remains in order to determine Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups. There is a moral in that story if you care to look for it!

A study carried out in 2024 identified five distinct family groups, 12 of my sample matches being derived from each of the groups. It should be made clear that with the exception of the prince's grave, none of the others excavated were buried with any distinct grave goods. All my sample matches were buried in simple burial pits, representative of the broad mass of the non-elite. In my next post I intend to analyse the family relationships of all 14 of my DNA matches,

These are my genetic sample matches from Leubingen:

Bronze Age Unetice Thuringia Leubingen Sommerda Germany

 LEU060 (1950 BC) 

mtDNA Haplogroup: T2b

Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)

Genetic Distance: 6.8896
Sample Match! 91% closer than other users

---

Bronze Age Unetice Thuringia Leubingen Sommerda Germany

 LEU040 (1950 BC) 

mtDNA Haplogroup: I1a1

Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1b1a1b1a1a (L151/PF6542)

Genetic Distance: 6.9358
Sample Match! 94% closer than other users

---

Bronze Age Unetice Thuringia Leubingen Sommerda Germany

 LEU031 (1950 BC) 

mtDNA Haplogroup: T2b11

Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1a1a1b (PF6162/S224/V1754/Z645)

Genetic Distance: 7.3709
Sample Match! 96% closer than other users

---

Bronze Age Unetice Thuringia Leubingen Sommerda Germany

 LEU024 (1950 BC) 

mtDNA Haplogroup: U5b2b2

Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1b1a1b1a1a2 (P312/PF6547/S116)

Genetic Distance: 7.9007
Sample Match! 94% closer than other users

---

Bronze Age Unetice Thuringia Leubingen Sommerda Germany

 LEU059 (1950 BC) 

mtDNA Haplogroup: H2b

Genetic Distance: 8.4423
Sample Match! 84% closer than other users

---

Bronze Age Unetice Thuringia Leubingen Sommerda Germany

 LEU039 (1950 BC) 

mtDNA Haplogroup: V7

Genetic Distance: 8.4755
Sample Match! 68% closer than other users

---

Bronze Age Unetice Thuringia Leubingen Sommerda Germany

 LEU041 (1950 BC) 

mtDNA Haplogroup: U5a1a1+16362

Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)

Genetic Distance: 8.5258
Sample Match! 89% closer than other users

---

Bronze Age Unetice Thuringia Leubingen Sommerda Germany

 LEU046 (1950 BC) 

mtDNA Haplogroup: U5a2c

Genetic Distance: 8.6899
Sample Match! 76% closer than other users

---

Bronze Age Unetice Thuringia Leubingen Sommerda Germany

 LEU007 (1950 BC) 

mtDNA Haplogroup: T2a1b1a

Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1b1a1b1a1a1 (M405/U106/S21)

Genetic Distance: 8.7015
Sample Match! 95% closer than other users

---

Bronze Age Unetice Thuringia Leubingen Sommerda Germany

 LEU025 (1950 BC) 

mtDNA Haplogroup: H2a1

Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1b1a1b1a1a2b (PF6570/S28/U152)

Genetic Distance: 8.7746
Sample Match! 90% closer than other users

---

Bronze Age Unetice Thuringia Leubingen Sommerda Germany

 LEU050 (1950 BC) 

mtDNA Haplogroup: T2b11

Genetic Distance: 9.8614
Sample Match! 96% closer than other users

---

Bronze Age Unetice Thuringia Leubingen Sommerda Germany

 LEU023 (1950 BC) 

mtDNA Haplogroup: U4d1

Genetic Distance: 10.697
Sample Match! 99% closer than other users

---

Bronze Age Unetice Thuringia Leubingen Sommerda Germany

 LEU009 (1950 BC) 

mtDNA Haplogroup: U5a1b1

Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1a1a1b (PF6162/S224/V1754/Z645)

Genetic Distance: 11.406
Sample Match! 95% closer than other users

Early Advanced Statehood in Central Germany- Unetice Culture Part 2

 This essay has a direct relevance to my earlier essay The Nebra Sky Disc-Unetice Culture Part 1 which I would encourage my readers to read first as I will not be going over the same old ground!

The Unetice Culture is not commonly known outside the academic world and it almost appears to have been sidelined: is this deliberate? Perhaps the concept of an ancient and advanced civilisation in the heart of Europe, covering Germany, Austria, Poland and the Czech Republic is a rather uncomfortable fact for modern academics to grasp, not conforming to their own rather limited intellectual horizons and pandering to political correctness. The 'academic' is the least free of all: he is conditioned to think only within the confines of his own specific 'discipline', a rather anaemic descendant of the true multidisciplinary polymaths of yesteryear. Earning their living from research they fear to tread beyond certain unwritten boundaries, especially today in the era of political correctness and the 'cancel culture'. Expect nothing truly great from such a mindset! However, there are always exceptions to be found!

Any civilisation that can produce an artefact such as the Nebra Disc with its implied astronomical knowledge going back beyond 3,600 years ago must have been at an advanced state of culture and civilisation (the word used in its original sense), illustrating once again that the notion of so-called 'barbaric' Northern European culture is built upon a lie and naked prejudice: one could even call the assumption racist.

The Unetice culture enjoyed a rich network of trading links, including the Wessex Culture of modern day England. Their forging of bronze weapons suggests regular trade with Britain for its Cornish tin, although items made of pure copper were also produced. Trade included the import of amber from the Baltic. Bronze ingots of varying weights and standardised sizes indicate a kind of 'commodity money' and the decimal system appears to have already been in operation as is evident from finds of 1kg batches of individual 100g ingots.

With the emergence of Bronze Age Europe, society became more hierarchical in structure, a feature associated also with the spread of Indo-European languages and the societies which spoke those languages. We know that the Unetice culture in Germany became particularly complex and hierarchically regimented, with the appearance of princely graves and their rich contents. It is speculated that well before the construction of the Nebra Disc the culture resembled a proto-state, in which its leader was supported by a formation of elite troops. This is also reflected in the centralisation and standardisation of manufacturing. More information on this aspect of the Unetice Culture may be found in Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries-The emergence of complex authority in the Central German Unetice culture (2019) by Harold Mellor. His article is extremely interesting and well worth a read.

A particularly advanced form of the Unetice Culture emerged in around 2200 BCE and appears to have been centred in the Harz region, or the Circum Harz, referred to by Dr Mellor. It is from the Circum Harz group that we get the Nebra Disc. In his article Dr Mellor stresses the fertile nature of the area around the Harz (this is what 'Circum' Harz means-'around') which helps to explain how such a rich culture could develop and thrive in an area with such fertile soil for agriculture and so many mineral resources. These are the ideal conditions for a state to develop-a settled community and rich natural resources. With the development of civilisation (from the Latin civis-'citizen' of a state or city) there is a necessity for leadership and hierarchy as well as for armed men to protect both the community, its wealth, resources and the leadership against both external and internal threats.

Of particular note are the two princely burials at Leubingen and Helmsdorf. The Leubingen grave had been excavated in 1877 by Friedrich Klopfleisch, an archaeologist and art professor from Jena University. Leubingen is a village which comes under the town of Sommerda in Thüringen (Thuringia). The tumulus is 23ft in height and the burial chamber is constructed from oaken beams which according to dendrochronologic resting date to 1942 BCE. The burial chamber measures 12.8 by 6.9ft. Contained within the chamber were a gold arm ring, two gold pins, two gold rings and a gold spiral; these were all placed by his right shoulder. At his feet were placed a stone battle axe, two bronze axes, three bronze daggers, three bronze chisels, a rectangular stone of unknown utility and a dagger blade (presumably bronze). A large ceramic pot stood in one corner containing some small bronze items. 

What I find particularly remarkable about the burial hoard is the antiquity of the stone axe, dated to the 5th millennium BCE, making this relic between 2,000-3,000 years old at the time of burial! By this time in prehistory stone axes had long been superseded first by copper and then bronze so the significance of this weapon must have been purely ritualistic. The axe was clearly a sacred heirloom and a link to the ancient past. Is the axe symbolic of the 'prince's' own ancestral line and his legitimacy to rule? It is clear from the finds that the people of this culture were conscious of history, the power of symbols and their existence as links in this great human genetic chain. This in itself is indicative of a high culture.

His full skeleton was present and his age at the time of death would have been between 40-50 years of age and he was a powerfully built man. His cause of death is unknown but he appears not to have died a violent death due to the lack of any evident bone trauma.

One clue as to the geo-historical origins of the axe is to be found in the preceding culture(s). According to Dr Mellor the Unetice Culture in this part of Germany arose from the merging of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Cultures, the former practised single body inhumations with prominent burials featuring a stone battle axe which was not only a weapon but a symbol of status and masculinity. I am reminded of the presence of the bronze battle axe in the Bush Barrow burial at the Normanton Down cemetery which overlooks Stonehenge. It belonged to a powerful chieftain of the Wessex Culture of around 2,000 BCE. However, the Leubingen axe has a matchless antiquity which supersedes anything that could be produced in the Bronze Age and thus, in my opinion, of greater significance.

Another highly significant princely burial is that of Helmsdorf in Sachsen-Anhalt. The mound was known as the Grosser Galgenhuegel (Great Gallows Hill) and the burial was discovered between 1906 and 1907 when the hill had to be removed to make way for the construction of an industrial mining railway. Excavations were carried out in 1907 by an unnamed archaeologist who had the good sense to investigate the mound before its complete destruction. The dimensions of the mound were 22.4ft in height and 108-113ft in diameter.

The Helmsdorf burial has been dated to 1840 BCE and its occupant died a violent death, probably from a dagger thrust into his abdomen and extending into his spine. The body had been placed in an oak coffin which may account for the dark weathering of the bones. Found near his chest was an axe made of diorite, a type of igneous rock, a bronze axe, two bronze daggers, six gold jewellery pieces (a large arm ring, two needles, two hanging spirals and a spiral coil) and some copper and bronze beads. Shards of a large ceramic vessel were found in the southeast corner of the burial chamber. The age at the time of death has been broadly estimated between 30 and 50 years of age.

The diorite axe was almost certainly a product of the Unetice culture and its material would have been sourced fairly locally. Unlike the stone axe from the Leubingen grave this axe was not old at the time of burial and was constructed during the prince's lifetime. This again is highly significant; why would a stone axe be constructed long after it had been superseded by bronze? Clearly, this axe, although not ancient had a cultural, ritual and symbolic significance to the people of that time, representing a link, probably a continuous like with the culture which preceded it which is also evidenced by the presence of other and older burials within the vicinity, which indicates that the site had been in continuous use since the late Neolithic. Indeed, the prince's grave itself had overlaid two other graves from the Corded Ware culture, indicating how the Unetice culture was a development of the merging of earlier cultures.

The third princely burial is from Bornhoeck in Sachsen-Anhalt, the largest known early Bronze Age burial mound in central Europe, measuring 49ft in height and between 213-262ft in width, dating back to 1800-1700 BCE. The princely occupant of the mound met his death between the ages of 30-50.  His grave contents consisted of thin gold plates, gold spirals, bronze weapons and bronze tools or pins along with poorly preserved textile or leather fragments. The grave was archaeologically 'discovered' in the 1840s and 1850s when quarrying took place and the mound consequently destroyed, although its existence was first documented in the 17th century. 

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leubingen_tumulus_1.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Leubingen_tumulus_1.jpg

Michael Köhler, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Janus, the Roman Tutelary God of the Month of January

 As we are now in the month of January, I thought it fitting that we pay tribute to the Roman god, Janus, after whom this month is named. Janus or more properly Ianus (pronounced 'yanus') was considered by the Romans to have been the first King of Latium. He is thus, the 'beginner' and he begins the year. From Ianus is derived the Latin for door, ianua, leading back to the Proto-Italic *ianu, also meaning 'door', and this in turn is derived from the Proto-Indo-European *ieh₂nu which has the meaning of 'passage'. The English word janitor (Latin: ianitor) derives from ianua. 

Linked to the idea of beginnings and doorways is the idea of transition or change. January is the beginning of a NEW year, not a repetition of what has happened before, hence the practice of making 'new year resolutions', which reflects the concept of change. Images of Ianus depict him as having two faces, one looking back to the left and one looking forward to the right. Sometimes one face depicts an old man while the other depicts a young one, symbolising the passing of the old year to make way for the new. Typically, the young man is an unbearded youth. He is therefore, a deity of time.

As a god who presides over beginnings, by default he also presides over endings, over death as well as birth and plantings. He is therefore the god who presides over war and peace which is reflected in the customs relating to his temple. The Temple of Janus is said to have been built by the legendary second King of Rome, Numa Pompilius (753-672 BCE), a small temple containing a bronze statue of Ianus and situated in the Roman Forum. The doors of the temple, known as the 'Gates of Ianus' were kept closed during times of peace but left open in times of war. The reasons for this custom are unclear but according to Virgil, it was to hold in Discord and Fury during times of peace, a kind of prison, if you will. The temple was square in shape and was depicted on Roman coins during the reign of Nero (54-68 CE).

Through Ianus, the Romans gained access to other gods in their prayers as he was the gateway to all the gods and should therefore be invoked first. It is interesting though that Ianus had no dedicated priesthood; the rex sacrorum ('king of the sacred things'), a senatorial priesthood of the ruling patrician class undertook his rites; later this was the duty of the pontifex maximus. At the beginning of each ceremony it was Janus whom had to be invoked.

Janus is one of the few Roman deities who has no known Greek equivalent. His exact origins are thus unknown but one train of thought is that they may be found among the Sumerians and Babylonians. The Mesopotamian god, Isimud, an attendant of Enki, is portrayed with two faces in opposite directions. It should be pointed out that despite the visual similarity, Isimud's functions are entirely different to those of Janus. Two-faced and multiple-faced gods are quite common among the Indo-Europeans and one only has to think of Svetovit, Porevit and Triglav! 

The custom of invoking Janus at the beginning of all rites, regardless of the deity, is indicative to me that his importance had been far greater in more distant archaic times, possibly ranking alongside Iuppiter (Jupiter) himself. One only has to examine his many epithets to get a sense of that: the Sower, the Opener, the Gatekeeper, and in particular, the Good Creator, King, the Father of the gods, God of the gods: he was no minor deity!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Double_herm_Chiaramonti_Inv1395.jpg 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Double_herm_Chiaramonti_Inv1395.jpg 

Vatican Museums, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

The Ancient Sacred Pre-Christian Site of Heiligenberg

 The large wooden hill (1,443 ft in height), known as Heiligenberg, overlooking the town of Heidelberg in Baden- Wuerttemberg ranks as the oldest known sacred site in Germany which had been in continuous use for a period of well over 7,000 years, starting in the Neolithic and continuing until fairly recent times. It would be helpful to break down this time period into separate stages so that we can clearly see its gradual development. Before we do this, I would like to explore the etymology of its name.

Heiligenberg has the meaning of 'sacred' or 'holy' mountain' or 'hill' but that in itself does not imply any form of pre-Christian sacrality and indeed this has been its name during modern times, a shortening of Allerheiligen-Berg ('All Saints Mountain'). The name Allerheiligen-Berg followed from the building of two local monasteries, St. Stephen's and St. Michael's in the 11th century and their subsequent taking over by the Premonstratensians in the year 1265. 

Prior to 1265 the hill was known as Aberinsberg during the Carolingian period, its oldest known appellation. The etymology is uncertain but the assumption is that the name Aberin was a personal name, so its meaning would be simply, Aberin's mountain/hill. This does not imply any known deity or sacred function.

Aberin has not been preserved in any Frankish or Alemannic mediaeval text as a personal name, so we have a little licence to speculate. If not a personal name then the term may be linked to the Old High German abo or aba from the Proto-Germanic and has the meaning of 'father/elder/ancestor'. This is quite plausible as ancestor worship was an early stage of Germanic religion. Another possibility is that the name is linked to the Old High German ebur from the Proto-Germanic *eburaz and means 'boar', an animal sacred to both the Germanic and Celtic peoples. This would involve a sound shift from Eburin to Aberin, which is quite plausible with Alemannic or Franconian dialects. We can be confident that the etymology is not Celtic and has nothing to do with the mediaeval monkish corruption of the original into Abrahamsberg. We also know that Aberin is not the name of any known deity.

The use of the Heiligenberg reaches back to the Neolithic with the discovery of linear pottery, arrow heads and neolithic flint tools, dated to 5500-5100 BCE. Despite these finds there is no evidence of actual occupation but merely periodic use, which is suggestive of cultic rather than habitational use. Hills and mountains, prominent in the landscape, are representative of liminal boundaries between the habitation of humans here on the earth and the sky gods above. The later long-term and continual use of this site for sacred purposes is suggestive of a prehistoric religious meaning going right back to the Neolithic. However, we lack actual evidence for this assumption.

The hill continued to be visited  in the Bronze Age: pottery fragments and Bronze Age flint tools demonstrate this but again there is no outright evidence of cultic use but the arguments relating to the Neolithic still apply to the Bronze Age. The majority of the Bronze Age finds are from the Urnfield Culture, about 1,000 BCE, an important precursor to the emergence in history of the Celts. Bypassing the Hallstatt period, the first major evidence of occupation that we have is from the La Tene Celtic Iron Age, with evidence of mining for ore early on in that period. The Celts constructed a double-walled hill fort around the primary and secondary peaks from 500 BCE. This gave them a panoramic vantage point over the Odenwald, Neckar valley and the Rhine plain. In 1893 a stone fragment of a Celtic head statue was discovered in the Bergheim district of Heidelberg. This strongly implies an elite ritual presence at the site. Constructed from Bundsandstein (coloured sandstone) and resembling in style the princely statue found at Glauberg.

Cut into the summit plateau is a deep narrow shaft, measuring 180ft in depth and about 10ft in diameter, known as the Heidenloch ('heathen hole'). The diameter of the shaft makes it far too narrow for mining and thus there is an assumption that it had some type of cultic utility. The theory that it may have been constructed as a well has been ruled out by geologists because the Bundsandstein is too porous to hold water and the depth of the shaft is insufficient to reach the water table. Likewise, the diameter of the shaft is considered too narrow to be able to function as a well. As this was clearly a ritual rather than a habitational site there would have been no necessity for a well anyway. During the mediaeval period the monastery used cisterns and springs lower down for their water supply. The question arises who built the shaft? The depth, form and placement of the shaft is indicative of Celtic construction, consistent with other such shafts found across central Europe. It is likely that the Romans reused the shaft. Pits, wells and shafts were used by the Celts ritually for deposits of weapons, precious goods, tools, animal remains and food as offerings to the gods, spirits and ancestors. The shaft was effectively a gateway to the chthonic world. It is more than likely that the Romans and Germanics would have viewed the function of the shaft in a similar way.

The continuing use of an established sacred site by an incoming population seems to have been a recurring pattern throughout the European Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages. Sacred continuity gave legitimacy to an incoming elite, and this continuity appears to have carried through from the Neolithic population to the Celtic, the Romano-Germanic and finally the Christianised Germanic population. The Romans in particular were especially adept in absorbing local Celtic and Germanic deities into their own pantheon, which helped to achieve political adhesion among the local subject Germanic and Celtic populations. 

Around 60 CE the Romans established a camp on the Neckar and a sanctuary was built upon the primary summit of the hill which was later incorporated into the Monastery of St. Michael, built in 1023. The foundations of a north orientated temple to Mercury can be found in the nave of the now ruined basilica. Archaeological finds from the site include votive stones with inscriptions to Mercurius Cimbrianus ('Mercury of the Cimbri'). As most of my readers will know, the Roman god Mercury was seen by classical writers as the equivalent (interpretatio romana) of the Germanic Wodan. The Cimbri of course were a Germanic tribe, so we can deduce that by Roman times this area was settled by Germanic people. In addition to the Cimbri, Suebi settled in the region during the first century BCE. After the retreat of the Romans the Alemanni moved into the area around 260 CE. Pre-Christian cultic use of the site of the site continued until at least 600 CE, the last date for burials on the site.

Prior to the construction of the Monastery of St. Michael, the first church to be built on the hill was by Abbot Thiotroch von Lorsch in the 9th century, being mentioned first in 890/891 which is also the earliest reference that we have for 'Aberinesberg'. From 1070 the hill became a site for Christian pilgrimages, thus continuing the ancient tradition of sacral veneration at Heiligenberg. In 1903 the Bismarck Tower was constructed in honour of the great Prussian statesman, Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898). Later during the Third Reich, a Thingstaette open air theatre was constructed in 1934/35.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20181124Heidelberger_Kopf.jpg 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/20181124Heidelberger_Kopf.jpg

AnRo0002, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

dies natalis Solis Invicti

 Today is the birthday of the sun, to give his Roman name, Sol Invictus (pronounces sol inwictus), the Invincible Sun, the origin of the commercial festival which many of you are today celebrating in ignorance as 'Christmas Day'. Here in the northern hemisphere, the day of the winter solstice falls on either the 21st or 22nd December but nevertheless it has been celebrated on the 25th here in England since Anglo-Saxon times. 

Yule, the Germanic pre-Christian term for 'Christmas', still used today, is also the time which marks the halfway point of winter if we consider that the autumn equinox is that point which marks the beginning of the decline of the sun's powers: we call this 'midwinter'.

According to the Venerable Bede (672/673-735 CE) of Jarrow, in the old, historic county of Durham, the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons called December and January Yule or Giuli to give it its Old English name. It marked the turning of the year and he discusses this in his de temporum ratione (On the Reckoning of Time). The Anglo-Saxons used a ten month lunar calendar as did the Romans until 46 BCE when Julius Caesar reformed the Roman calendar into a lunar-solar one consisting of twelve months. The observant reader will see traces of the old Roman calendar in the modern English names for the months: September (septem=seven), October (octo=eight), November (novem=nine) and December (decem=ten).

Later, the Anglo-Saxons differentiated between the first half of Yule (December) by calling it Ǣrra-ġēolamōnaþ and the second half, Æfterra-ġēolamōnaþ (January). The Old Norse equivalent of Geōla being Jól. Bede also attested to another feast that was held at this time of the year, Mōdraniht, meaning 'night of the mothers'. From the original Latin:

                            'incipiebant autem annum ab octavo Calendarum Januariarum die, ubi nunc natale Domini celebramus. et ipsam noctem nunc nobis sacrosanctam, tunc gentili vocabulo Modranicht, id est, matrum noctem appellabant: ob causam et suspicamur ceremoniarum, quas in ea pervigiles agebant.''

My translation:

'They began the year from the eighth calends of January, when we celebrate the birth of the Lord. And that same night now sacred to us, they used to call by the pagan name Modranicht,that is, the night of the mothers: for the reason, we suspect, of the ceremonies which they enacted on that night.'

The 'eighth calends of January' equates to the 25th December. The 'mothers' referred to by Bede are likely to have been the very same personages known to us as the disir in Old Norse, the itis in Old High German, the idis in Old Saxon and the Old English ides. The similar etymology for these terms across four old Germanic languages seems to imply a common and ancient Germanic cultural and religious inheritance. Taking the Old Norse term, dis, we find this as a suffix in Vanadis, the dis of the Vanir, an epithet for the goddess, Freyja. This would imply that the mothers, if they are indeed disir are divine or semi-divine entities, possibly ancestrices of the Anglo-Saxons themselves, elevated to a semi-divine status by a people who honoured their distant ancestors to the point of reverence and worship.

 Indeed, there may very well be a connection between the disir and the 'mothers' via the matronae/matres worshipped by the Celto-Germanic peoples of northwest Europe. Stone altars attesting to their worship are to be found in Gaul, the Rhineland and the low countries, particularly in areas occupied by the Romans. The best known of these deities is without a doubt, Nehalennia attested to in 2nd and 3rd century BCE Gallia Belgica (Belgic Gaul), a Romano-Celto-Germanic cultural melting pot. Anyone interested in Nehalennia and similar deities would benefit from obtaining a copy of Nehalennia. Divine Lady of Prosperity, Trade and Safe Crossings by Gunivortus Goos (GardenStone), 2023.

The idisi are referred to in the First Merseburg Charm, written in Old High German and dated to the 9th century. 

                                              Eiris sazun idisi,

                                              sazun hera duoder;
                                              suma hapt heptidun,
                                              suma heri lezidun,
                                              suma clubodun
                                              umbi cuoniouuidi:
                                              insprinc haptbandun,

                                              inuar uigandun (Griffiths, 2003)

Modern English translation (by Giangrosso, 2016)

                                              Once sat women,

                                              They sat here, then there.
                                              Some fastened bonds,
                                              Some impeded an army,
                                              Some unraveled fetters:

                                              Escape the bonds,
                                              flee the enemy!

The idisi are clearly not mortal women when one analyses their activities, which resemble more that of the Nornir, referred to in the Eddas, who decide the fates of men.

Why Do Bible Scholars Still Peddle the Myth that Jesus Ever Existed?

 Despite the lack of evidence for the historical existence of 'Jesus of Nazareth', the majority of academics who earn their daily bread from the study of this fictional/mythical character still cling tenaciously to their childhood beliefs in the the 'man from Galilee', even if they no longer hold to alleged miracles attributed to him. Why is this? Why do they maintain that the 'Jesus' of history is a 'proven fact' when there is not an iota of evidence to support this 'fact'? Not a single piece of historical evidence that is CONTEMPORANEOUS to the alleged lifetime of 'Jesus' can be uncovered. 

Scholars are fond of telling us that there is ample evidence for the life of 'Jesus' from secular and Roman sources but the fact of the matter is, no such evidence exists: all references were made by authors who were not even alive during 'his' lifetime. How then can the writings of authors such as Josephus, Tacitus et al be considered 'evidence' when they are at most mere hearsay and thus in a court of law, INADMISSABLE! 

Some of my readers (I trust only some) would argue that Jesus, being an insignificant first century Jew would not have been newsworthy enough to be mentioned by Roman sources, and yet this man is supposed to have caused a stir in Galilee and Jerusalem: healing the sick, the lame, the blind, the deaf, raising the dead to life, casting out thousands of demons, feeding 5,000 people with just five loaves of bread and two fishes (housewives please take note!), walking on water, turning water into wine, creating enemies among the Jewish priestly cast and finally coming to the attention of the Roman authorities and dying by crucifixion, causing a solar eclipse, an earthquake, with many tombs opening up and the dead raising again to life, then Jesus resurrecting after three days and ascending into the clouds. How could this man, if he existed, be not newsworthy enough for the Romans, who avidly reported on and recorded the least little thing? You would have thought that a dead man walking around for forty days would have come to the attention of somebody significant! 

Or did none of these things ever happen? And if they never happened, why should we also believe that the man who allegedly caused these things to happen (but didn't) ever exist? I am sure that Jesus (Yeshua) was a very popular name at that time in Judaea and Galilee so I am positive that someone with that name did exist but that is not the same thing as arguing that THE Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure, and if you divest his life from all the alleged supernatural activity then what are we left with other than a first century Jewish proto-hippy? Is that enough to build a religion on? Is that enough to torture and kill those who do not accept this religion? 

If the Jesus of 'history' did not exist then everything else about Christianity is false. We must bear in mind that the majority of  Bible scholars are Christians, often evangelical and American. Those that are not tend to start off in life as students of theology, not history and not a few would have attended some kind of seminary for Christian ministry. Rejecting the Jesus of the miracles is one thing but rejecting the very existence of the man would be a step too far for many of them, especially when we have passages like this in the New Testament:

                                             'For many deceivers are entered into the world,

                                             who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in

                                             the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.'

                                             (2 John 1:7, KJV)

So, even in the days when John's second epistle was written towards the end of the first century there were already people who doubted or denied his historical existence! Yet, those scholars who cling to the theory of an historical Jesus would have us believe that this is a comparatively recent theory, id est, the 'mythical Christ' theory. If doubt about an historical Jesus has risen only in 'recent' times (18th century onwards) then perhaps this has more to do with the weakening of the Church's grip upon the populations whom they serve, not simply a 'new' and 'anti-authoritarian' stance? The Church can no longer keep us in ignorance and they can no longer enforce their theology and practices on the rest of us! 

If Christianity were any other religion it would be rightly referred to as a cult or a mythology but in certain parts of the world, most notably in North America, it still wields enormous influence and can help to determine the outcomes of elections. Christianity is especially politicised in the United States, where childhood indoctrination and Christian fairytales don't fade away so easily. Scholars in any discipline are extremely cautious and conservative by nature and tend to fear straying too far from the 'received view', and in the case of Bible scholars, to doubt the historicity of Jesus, in the United States in particular, would be akin to falling upon one's own sword. It takes an extremely courageous man to go against mainstream and 'received' opinion in religion or in anything else for that matter.

Reflections on Yule Part Four-The 'Virgin Birth' and its Pagan Antecedents

 Having already established in my earlier essay Reflections on Yule Part Two-The Lie of Jesus's Existence that there is no evidence for an historical 'Jesus of Nazareth', I must turn to the the nonsense written by the writers of the gospels concerning his alleged 'virgin birth'. It would be helpful at this point to cite the main scriptural references which cover this 'miraculous' event.

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

(Matthew 1:18-25, KJV)

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

(Luke 1:26-33, KJV)

Interestingly, the so-called 'virgin birth' is not referred to in the other synoptic gospel, Mark. The term synoptic is used for the first three gospels as they have a similar style and structure, narrating events like a story. The gospel of John is radically different in style and content, appearing to be influenced by Gnosticism. It is the only canonical gospel which refers to Christ as the logos and is certainly worthy of study. Considering that the gospel of Mark is older than Luke, it does appear strange that the writer should omit to relate the story of Jesus's divine and virgin birth. Could this be because this was a developing idea which only gradually came to be established to bolster the idea that Jesus was the 'son of God', and not part of the earliest narrative, that Mark also predates Matthew (an ongoing debate among Bible scholars). 

The virgin birth account of Matthew and Luke are supposed to be a fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy:

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14, KJV)

The term 'virgin' is a translation (or mistranslation) of the Hebrew almah , which has the usual meaning of 'young woman' and need not imply that the girl is virgo intacta! Anyone familiar with the mythologies of the ancient world, both Semitic and Indo-European would recognise instantly that the 'virgin birth' of Jesus is simply a common trope of a semi-divine god-man. Examples of such god-men include:

Perseus, son of Zeus (pronounced correctly like the Latin deus)  and the woman, Danae.

Attis, son of an almond discarded by the gods and the woman, Nana who was also of divine or semi-divine birth, being the daughter of the Phrygian river-god, Sangarius, who was himself the son of Oceanus.

Ra, the son of the goddess, Neith and the product of parthenogenesis, which is an asexual form of reproduction where the egg requires no fertilisation.

Zoroaster, the son of the virgin, Dughdova and a shaft of light.

Alexander the Great, born of the mortal woman, Olympias of Epirus and the god, Zeus in the form of a serpent.

Romulus and Remus, sons of the mortal woman, Rhea Silvia and the god, Mars.

Asclepius, the son of the mortal woman, Coronis and the god, Apollo.

Helen of Troy, daughter of the mortal woman, Leda and the god, Zeus.

Krishna, the son of the mortal woman, Devaki and the god, Vishnu.

There are many other such examples in the pre-Christian and non-Christian world of demi-gods being born from the union of a god/goddess with a woman/man, whether this be a virgin birth or any other type of miraculous birth. Thus, the alleged 'virgin birth' of Jesus of Nazareth has very clear pagan antecedents.