Talk:Samhain

More than just "new year" questioned.

Given the reference to Hutton's book Stations of the Sun, I'm a little surprised that the most important academic objection to the story of Samhain is whether it was really the Celtic new year. Hutton also pointed out that the tradition of relighting hearth fires from a single bonfire was written by Keating without a reference, that no other evidence exists for it, and that it would require an unlikely degree of political and religious centralization.

He also explained that the notion that it was a festival of the dead came from Sir James Frazer, who had no evidence but reasoned that (1) festivals of the dead are common in other cultures, (2) other pagan holidays have been Christianized, (3) All Hallow's Eve involved a festival of the dead, so it must be a Christianized pagan festival of the dead. But Christians have had celebrations of the martyrs since the fourth century. By the 5th it was celebrated on Easter Week in Syria, the Sunday after Pentecost by the Greeks, and May 13 by the Romans. By 800 Germany and England celebrated a festival to all the saints on November 1, but the Irish on April 20. The dead didn't come into it until 998 when Odilo of Cluny ordered his congregation to celebrate a mass for the dead in February, and only later was that adopted throughout Christiandom and moved to November 2. In short, the festival for the dead originated with the Catholics.

There is the further theory (one among several) that All Saints' Day began as a yearly mass in an oratory in St. Peter's Basilica, dedicated by Pope Gregory III in 732, the November 1 date suggested by Irish monks but the mass celebrated only in Rome for a hundred years. (See the entry in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, and The Pagan Mysteries of Halloween by Jean Markale (2000, English translation 2001), p88 in the English translation. Unfortunately his references are in French. But that makes it a problem to connect All Saints' or its customs to Samhain.

It might also be mentioned that until the middle of the 20th century anthropologists pretty much assumed that any festival, however new it actually was, had ancient pagan roots, even if the people celebrating it gave a different story and were therefore thought to be ignorant of its origins. There was a romantization of rural cultures such that it was thought the rural folk were holders of ancient wisdom, but simultaneously ignorant that they held wisdom or that it was ancient, so they needed academics to explain it to them, based on theories that have long been discredited. Which results in the confusing state of affairs that there's a lot about the pagan past that we don't know, but a lot that people say as if they do know.

64.61.220.143 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Greg

I've tried to fix it, but feel free to help, since you clearly have the relevant sources. --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

read the article about Lemuria festival in the ancient Rome; during the Christianization of Rome, the Pantheon temple was consecrated to Virgin Mary and all Saints and the holiday was established on May 13/14. The consecration and the holiday were clearly to replace the old Pagan custom by the new Christian one. Both events (Lemuria and All Saints) were dedicated to The Dead, only Romans wanted to expel them, while Catholics seem to give some respect to the Departed Souls, what reminds a bit some older traditions based in Ancestor Worship (though Christianity itself is not based on AW, of course; neither is its precedessor, Judaism). Another good article is about Festival of the Dead Critto (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lemuria was considered an especially in-auspicious time of year to begin any endeavor or dedicate anything. It was so unlucky that it affected the whole month of May. Malae maio nubent, "bad girls marry in May", went the ancient Roman saying. Its unlikely that Lemuria was still celebrated in Rome when the Pantheon was dedicated. If it was, then the Pantheon was dedicated despite the Lemuria, rather than because of it. On the other hand, there is evidence for All Saints celebrations in Syria on May 13th long before the dedication of the Pantheon; such celebrations may have influenced Rome's choice of the date. Rwflammang (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There's some misunderstanding between us two, I think this comes from the English language which, at least for me, is not a mother tongue. Polish, which I speak daily, is a Slavic language with a totally different structure and grammar (disregarding that both languages are Indo-European, of course). Anyway, I didn't claim that The Pope dedicated the Pantheon because of Lemuria; obviously the supreme Catholic priest wouldn't observe the Pagan rites, whether obsolete or contemporary to him. What I think is that it may be possible that he wanted to eradicate the old Pagan Roman customs and replace them with the new Christian ones, as people, especially from the lower strata, are very strongly attached to old customs.

It is widely known that in Christianized countries around the Globe, a lot of older customs were preserved. We may call then thet The Pope dedicated Pantheon _despite_ the Lemuria, to lower their meaning. Also, any dating of Christian festivals, even if of genuine Christian origin, doesn't preclude blending with other traditions. For example, while death of Jesus on the cross is probably a historical fact that took place in April around year 33 CE, it doesn't mean that a lot of Spring-related and fertility-related holidays and festivals weren't observed this time in Europe, Middle East, Northern Africa and elsewhere.

They naturally were observed (and still are, eg. Nowruz in Iran and Holi in India) and this way a lot of pre-Christian customs as egg painting (observed eg. in Zoroastrian Persia and probaably pre-Christian Slavs and Balts) were blended into the Easter customs. The same went for at least some of Christmas customs, which were blended with the ones observed on Saturnalia, Winterblot, Yule (if such a holiday existed), etc. This doesn't mean, of course, that Christmas is an extension of Pagan holiday, only that Christians borrowed some customs from Pagans. Not to mention the death of St. John the Baptist which could have taken place on June 24rd, however this doesn't mean that the Summer-related festivals didn't take place around this time, as they did and some customs might have been blended again.

And, in most cases, rather than being ordered by the Church, such a borrowing and blending was a natural process of the people. Finally, the fact that Christian missionaries planted a holiday in some country and it was later blended with local tradition s doesn't mean, that the planted holiday wasn't borrowed from another Pagan holiday in another country. A lot was (and still is) common not only in the Indo-European cultures, but in agrarian cultures in many parts of the world. Cheers, Critto (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pagan Thought Police

Wow, that didn't take long. I posted a question about a pov revert to the intro of the Samhain article and within 30 minutes it was deleted. This article used to lead with the npov statement that Samhain was the word as Gaeilge for the month of November and gave it's etymology. It now leads with unsourced POV neo-pagan claptrap about their festival. I even mentioned in my comment that of course it was appropriate to discuss the modern neo-pagan festival of Samhain but that it should first be noted that it has a more generic meaning. That would be the encyclopedic thing to do. I suppose whomever deleted my post didn't like the fact that I pointed out that neo-pagans have essentially stolen Samhain from celtic culture and have made it in to something it never was. Ye love to point out how christians did that to "your" festivals but the goddess forbid that anyone point out that ye are doing the same thing with celtic culture and tradition. About 90% of the information in the current article is unsourced and reflects the typical overly romanticized concept of samhain popular among neo-pagans. Alas, I'm sure this comment too will be deleted. So much for the true meaning of wikipedia. --Dliodoir (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment was removed because it was an insult-filled rant, not a constructive comment about improving the article. (And I say that as a Christian, not a pagan.) The article begins with a discussion of Samhain in ancient pagan Celtic culture, not with its significance in neo-Paganism. That doesn't come until two-thirds of the way down the page. If you care about "the true meaning of Wikipedia", read the article first without preconceived notions of what you expect to find, then read WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK, then come back here to discuss improvements to the article without name-calling. —Angr 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Samhain translating to... Burning Man?

I am not an expert in the subject, but there does seem to be a rather large parallel here; a translation of an ancient spiritual ritual into modern times? Has this been discussed, or is it just ridiculous conjecture on my part?... (Pterantula (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

Burning Man has absolutely nothing to do with Samhain.BoyintheMachine (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Pop Culture

I've added in a reference to the inclusion of Samhain in the Halloween series of movies, specifically with regards to Michael Myers himself. To be honest, I'm surprised there wasn't already any mention of the connection as the Halloween movies are more high profile than the other two examples. HDC7777 (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Take it to Irish mythology in popular culture. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Historic Date

While a later part of the article discusses the tendency of many ancient groups to celebrate Samhain based on frost and harvest and land conditions, the first paragraph simply gives the date as October 31/November 1. I was under the impression that the October 31/November 1 date was largely a modern adaptation, whereas any ancient people who used a set annual date for the festival would have timed their events by the sun (such as those who built Stonehenge.) The midway point between the solstice and equinox is roughly a week later. This year it is November 6/7. Perhaps the initial paragraph could be changed to make the questionable or approximate date more clear. 68.146.28.195 (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Loreena McKennitt's song

Is the Loreena McKennitt's All Souls' Night about All Souls' Day or Samhain?

I've posted this in here and in Talk:All Souls' Day.Civic Cat (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

All Souls' Night is literally the evening of All Souls' Day, November 2. So therefore the answer would be no.BoyintheMachine (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

songs about Samhain

If we can have
[[Category:Christmas songs]]
List of Christmas hit singles
List of non-religious Christmas songs
Then what about List of songs about Samhaim?
Civic Cat (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding entry 6 The Spirit of Halloween

In looking over the entry on Samhain, this particular section seems somewhat out of place, as it is located between Celtic Reconstructionism and Wicca but does not seem to have anything to do with either of them or the previous section of Neopaganism. It is also put in as a top level headline, rather than a subheader; the implication is that Wicca falls under this heading. I would also like to note there are no references of any sort in regards to the information posted under The Spirit of Halloween. My main concern is for the accuracy of this information, as well as its correct location within the article. Thank you. 64.85.228.72 (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly...

This holiday was originally named after a spirit of the same name. I'll look it up, but it seems like an oversight without mentioning that (if true). And I was going to mention Glen Danzig's band -- but I see there's a page for that already. :) --valerie (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to "Samhain" the god or spirit of the dead then you would be mistaken. Samhain is not the name of a deity.BoyintheMachine (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

References

This:

<ref name="Danaher"/><ref name="McNeill"/><ref name="O'Driscoll"/>

is not acceptable. We don't call for "references" because we like the look of these little footnote numerals. References are supposed to clarify which information is taken from where. Just a liberal sprinkling of the article with generic references that amount to a hundred pages does not do that job. The fact that statements are attributed to all three of these (doubtlessly valid) references, summarily, makes it clear that whoever added these footnotes did not have the sources in front of them. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the article history, and it turns out that the edit in question is User:Kathryn NicDhàna's, from January 2007.

I respect Kathryn for the work she does on Celtic topics, and the edit was certainly a great improvement to the article as it stood in 2006, but now (2010) it becomes apparent that the "virtual referencing" (summarily slapping references on an existing paragraph written by somebody else) created a problem: the paragraph remained unverified for more than three years because editors assumed it had been based on reliable sources.

My present concern is the claim that the English term bonfire originates as a loan translation of 'tine cnámh. This piece of information has since Samhain 2006 made its way from Wikipedia to the internet at large. The question is, is it true? After Kathryn's edit, the claim was implied that this theory was found in "Danaher", "McNeill" and/or "O'Driscoll". Is this the case? If so, in which of the three? The point is that this claim was originally added by an anonymous IP with no reference whatsoever, but has now survived without challenge for three years because of the "pseudo-referencing". Such problems are extremely difficult to spot, and it would be better to leave information unreferenced than to create a false impression of backing in academic sources. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've sourced the tine cnámh to O'Donaill, Focloir Gaeilge-Bearla/Irish-English Dictionary. Although, due to some spelling variation because of Irish spelling reforms in the 20th century, the actual spelling given in O'Donaill is tine chnámh. But my understanding is these are equivalent spellings for the same word.

As to the rather broad sourcing of whole paras to, as you say, a hundred pages in three sources, I'll see if I can address some of it since I believe I have all those texts available to me. But I'd like to note that I believe the citations can be refined exceedingly fine from these three sources, including multiple sources for multiple individual words in many of the sentences. Would you agree that seems an excessive approach to the citations? These are often dense sentences and perfect specificity of citation would inevitably lead to "citation drift" when other people edit the article, inserting phrases or rewriting sentences but very often moving the citation to an incorrect place or leaving it to cite the wrong info. I've seen this often on WP. I'm not saying the citations here shouldn't be more specific, only that it requires more ongoing attention by editors familiar with the sources.

I'm really not arguing with your basic point, only some practical considerations on limits in my opinion. --Pigman☿/talk 16:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

of course you can compile entire paragraphs or even articles summarizing a source. Without needing to attach a footnote to every punctuation mark. The problem begins when you attach a "reference" to an existing paragraph, written by other people.

also, my issue is not with tine cnámh literally translating to "bone fire". The question is, did the English term bonfire, attested from about 1500, originate as a Gaelic loan translation and not, for example, vice versa. --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right; this needs work. I can't recall who added the whole "bone fire" thing. I haven't had a chance to go back through the history but, IIRC, it was removed, then re-added a few times by persistent editors, and never with a good source. The over-general sourcing in other places was probably me trying to put in something basic, intending to come back and make it more specific. Looking in the notes, we do have page numbers for each of those references, though often to an entire chapter or series of pages in the respective books (say, the Samhain chapter in Danaher). But it looks like since I added those refs others have inserted additional content in those sections, or rearranged the paragraphs, implying the sources still apply to all the content now it's been altered. I have the books at hand here, and can make the page refs more specific when I get a chance. But I imagine other stuff here will need to go. I won't get to it today, though. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify on the page numbers referenced in the abbreviated/repeated ref format:

<ref name="Danaher"/> links to Danaher, Kevin (1972) The Year in Ireland: Irish Calendar Customs Dublin, Mercier. ISBN 1-85635-093-2 pp.190-232,

<ref name="McNeill"/> goes to McNeill, F. Marian (1961, 1990) The Silver Bough, Vol. 3. William MacLellan, Glasgow ISBN 0-948474-04-1 pp.11-46,

<ref name="O'Driscoll"/> goes to O'Driscoll, Robert (ed.) (1981) The Celtic Consciousness New York, Braziller ISBN 0-8076-1136-0 pp.197-216: Ross, Anne "Material Culture, Myth and Folk Memory" (on modern survivals); pp.217-242: Danaher, Kevin "Irish Folk Tradition and the Celtic Calendar" (on specific customs and rituals)

btw, Pigman, if you have time to get to the more specific pages today or tomorrow, go for it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

dab: Apparently, I am stupid. I missed your point entirely about "bonfire". My (English) dictionary says "bonfire" comes from Middle English. Technically, the sentence "The word 'bonfire', or 'bonefire' is a direct translation of the Gaelic tine cnámh" is basically correct but very misleading. The translation of tine cnámh is indeed "bonfire" but the English word "bonfire" is not derived etymologically from tine cnámh as far as I can tell. I'm removing the sentence entirely; it's unnecessary and obviously confusing. --Pigman☿/talk 16:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Also,

"A harvest festival with ancient roots in Celtic polytheism, 

it was linked to festivals held around the same time in other Celtic cultures, and continued to be celebrated in late medieval times. Due to its date it became associated with the Christian festival All Saints' Day, and greatly influenced modern celebration of Halloween."

No citation...

Evidence of Pagan origin

Maybe I'm missing something, but I see no discussion in this article of the primary sources that provide evidence of a pagan origin for this holiday. It seems clear to me that this holiday can be traced back to the middle ages, but what makes anyone think that it had a pre-Christian origin? Rwflammang (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

everything has pre-Christian roots, including the word "roots" and Christianity itself. That's a null statement.

It is part of Wikipedia's fate that people will always keep re-inserting misconceptions that are already debunked in the article, simply because you cannot expect people to read more than the lead section (if even that) before clicking the "edit" button. --dab (𒁳) 16:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The german WP article mentions Samhain as predominantly neoceltic holiday +- invented by John Rhys around 1890. This can be based on quality sources as e.g. Bernhard Maier (Die Religionen der Kelten. Götter - Mythen. Weltbild, 2. Aufl., München 2004, S. 174ff) and others see more of a link between early christianity in Ireland and Caltic revival reconstruction than the other wayround. BTW Most things I am aware of have no prechristian roots, e.g. Wikipedia itself. ;) Bakulan (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

of course Wikipedia has pre-Christian roots. See e.g. Nabnitu, Old Italic alphabets.

in other words, the problem is not in the term "pre-Christian", it is in your exact understanding of term "roots".

frankly, I don't see what you want. The article doesn't allege that Samhain has "pre-Christian roots" beyond a sober discussion of the etymology of the word and its occurrence in the Coligny calendar. The remaining discussion of the festival's early history concerns the medieval period, i.e. the Christian period. The article is also aware that the notion of the "Celtic New Year" associated with Samhain dates to the 18th century. If you want to add further material concerning the modern-era popularisation of the festival, you are welcome to do that. --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "null statement" means, but I think a discussion of the primary sources regarding Samhain's origin would improve the article. I don't think that discussing the origin of wikipedia here would improve the article. Rwflammang (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

unless you provide us with a strong sources, preferrably the early Medieval or even Roman chronicles, not much will change. A scourge of all Paganism- and Early Christianity- related articles, maybe with an exception of Roman holidays which are well-documented, is the scarcity of the sources, which in addition in most cases represent a very strong POV. There are a lot of discussions on the Slavic holidays, too, though Slavic Paganism was preserved much longer than Celtic one (some peoples were officially Pagan even in XII century CE). For example, the Harvest festival of Plony or Dożynki is described with details in Saxo Grammaticus chronicle "Gesta Danorum". Still, in Polish wikipedia there's no mention on the source, which may lead to accusations that it's a Romantic invention, which it clearly isn't (if anything, Saxo or his patron, bishop Absalon, could have invented or changed some facts in XII century). Article about the Springtime festival Jare Gody was removed altogether, despite many references in the folklore and similiarities with other cultures (eg. Nowruz or Holi, which share a lot of customs similiar both with Easter and Jare Gody, despite the geographical distance). Again, there were no sources. In the case oc Celtic holidays, I am curious what about other holidays as Imbolc, Beltaine, Lughnasadh, etc? If they are historically confirmed, then this would be strange if Samhain was not observed, as most European cultures _did have_ the season-related festivals, and the time of these other holidays clearly indicates the preferrence for cross-quarter holidays (around the halves between Equinox and Solstice dates; of course I don't claim these peoples observed Solstices and Equinoxes as such, dating was rather based on Lunisolar calendar), rather than quarter ones (around, though probably not directly related to, the Solstices and Equinoxes). And if Celts observed cross-quarters, then it becomes obvious: Imbolc (February), Beltaine (May), Lugnasadh (August), Samhain (November). Also, what's wrong with the sources as books by Nora Chadwick, who was a respected Medievalist for most of her life? Does anybody here have such an expertise in the topics of ancient/medieval holidays, that he/she may claim something is "naive", "serious", "true", "untrue"? Lack of the sources and too bold claims by the people who may or may not be experts in the themes they comment, whether as skeptics or apologists, is a serious threat to the reliability of Wikipedia and makes this project not much reliable one. Critto (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you think so indeed. Then I would kindly ask you to review the edit history of this article and try to figure out who has tended to collect such decent references as this article currently does have.

Regarding Bakulan's complaint, I must say that the article still cites to many shoddy references. Citing the naive claim that Samhain was "the Celtic New Year" from Chadwick (1970) does not establish that this idea was popularised in the 18th century. It seems to be correct that John Rhys was the first to come up with this expression, apparently in the 1880s. Literature in the 18th century still discussed Samhain in the context of the yearly ritual of the druids, I might add based on medieval Irish sources. In this sense, the idea that the Samhain festival has pre-Christian roots is due to medieval Ireland, such as the 9th-century Sanas Cormaic. I am adding information from Hutton. We can lose inferior references such as Chadwick as far as I am concerned. --dab (𒁳) 11:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we have established the following:

• Samhain was the beginning of the winter season in medieval Ireland, attested from about the 10th century.
• the earliest claim of a pagan ritual celebrated at Samhain dates to the 17th century
• 18th century scholarship mostly took the pagan associations of Samhain for granted
• the theory that the festival did not just mark the beginning of the winter season but the "Celtic New Year" is due to Rhys and Frazer, and dates to the late 19th century.

I think there is a little misunderstanding here surrounding the terms "pagan" or "pre-Christian". Often saying "pre-Christian roots" seems to imply some religious significance. In my book, "pre-Christian" would simply mean that the "quarter days" marking the four seasons are a tradition that predate the 5th century, without supposing any religious cult associated with them. --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. If so, then its allsaints thats influenced our view of Samhain and not vice versa. basically on should clearly state in the entrance paragraph, that Samhain is neoceltic reconstruction without much evidence in the ancient celtic record. Bakulan (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's so simple. I think clearly Samhain is an early (8th century?) medieval holiday, and not just a neo-celtic reconstruction. Its original meaning is shrouded in mystery. I don't know when All Saints Day was first celebrated in November in Ireland, but I do know that All Saints was celebrated in April in 5th century Ireland. I'd be surprised if All Saints was celebrated in November in Ireland before the 9th century, but I could be wrong about that. It's conceivable that Samhain originated as a local variant of All Saints, but it's also conceivable that it had an independent origin. If the latter, it's conceivable that its origins may have been pre-Christian, but far from certain. In fact, I know of no positive evidence to support any of this. Rwflammang (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bakulan, what is wrong with you? HistoricalSamhain is a medieval Celtic festival. Why do you keep going on about the "ancient Celts"? It may have escaped your notice, but there is a period of time between the ancient Celtic period and neoceltic reconstruction. It only spans about a millennium, the 6th to 16th centuries, and is known as the "Middle Ages". The Gaelic Middle Ages are neither "pagan" nor "neoceltic reconstruction", they are just the Christian Celtic Middle Ages. Your constant focus on paganism and neopaganism in a topic that concerns the Christian Middle Ages is completely beside the point, and also annoying.

I realize that there is much pseudohistorical nonsense flying around concerning the "ancient pagan Celts" and their connection to Samhain etc. But it is precisely the neopagan fallacy to ignore the medieval period, and pretend that the "ancient Celts" were somehow seamlessly followed by the Wiccans. I appreciate that you are trying to dispel such fallacies, but by ignoring the medieval period yourself, you are simply perpetuating the neopagan fallacy. The Gaelic festival did not so much "become associated" with a Catholic festival, it was a Catholic festival, celebrated by Celts who were also Catholics, or Catholics who were also Celts. It is completely undisputed that Samhain was an important festival in medieval (Christian) Gaelic culture. It is correct that the idea that this festival is somehow "pagan" seems to be modern, but that doesn't make the festical itself a modern invention. --dab (𒁳) 07:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to improve the article in this respect. Our earliest references establish that Samhain was a festival in medieval Ireland (say, 10th to 12th century). Any speculation on how the festival may have looked like at an earlier time, say the 7th century, let alone the 4th or 3rd century, are just that: speculation. Our earliest evidence linking All Saints to 1 November date to the 8th century, i.e. they are 200 years older than our earliest references to Samhain. It is therefore pointless to try and postulate a Samhain that was not associated with the Church festival of All Saints. --dab (𒁳) 13:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The entry sounds much better now. Bakulan (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)