Talk:Crom Cruach

Untitled

Just edited the article for minor grammer errors and clearity. -Rick 12/23/05

History or Mythology?

Is this article intended as actual history or just as a description of mythological texts? Because it seems to be presenting itself as fact, I'm especially concerned with statements like this...

"On Samhain (November 1)parents sacrificed one third of their children to him in exchange for milk, corn, the fertility of cattle and a fertile growing season. The god horrified many because of his terrible demands. It was often dangerous to worship him because the worshipers themselves often died in the act."

Are we meant to take this as historical fact or just what medieval monks thought about it?

Because it sounds to me like another piece of Medieval Christian, anti-pagan propaganda.

--Hibernian 02:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write any of this article, but human sacrifice stories concerning the early Celts come from Roman writings, particularly Strabo's Geographica and Caesar's Gallic Wars. Who knows how tainted the information is, by xenophobia or propaganda or rumour, but that's where the "historical" references come from. -Fennel 08:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is that we lack effective and reliable information on the matter. Given that most of the written texts on the matter that came to us are the work of monks, a heavy christian bias is to be expected. History and legend are intertwined to the point that one can't be distinguished from the other. There IS evidence theat ancient Celts did practice human sacrifice on important occasions, even if the Roman propaganda obviously exxagerated the matter greatly. Svartalf 17:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I Never said the Celts didn't practice Human Sacrifice, of-course they did, we have the bodies of Sacrificed people to prove that (there were 2 more found last year in Ireland). But that doesn't mean that the obviously exaggerated Propaganda of this piece is to be taken literally, as it seems to be in this article. The belief that they could have sacrificed one child from each family Every Year! Now that is hard to believe. All Evidence points to Human Sacrifice as being Extremely Rare with the Celts, what is being described here is "Mass Sacrifice" there is no evidence that suggests that.

Assuming this claim is true it would mean families would have to have a baby every year just to Sacrifice it, presumably this practice would have gone on for some time (possible centuries), so why don't archaeologist find Mass Graves with Thousands of Executed bodies? (Like they do with Mesoamerican Civilizations who Practised Mass Scarifies).

The answer is obvious, there was no mass Sacrifices, to do some anyway, you would need a sophisticated Urban Civilization (like the Aztecs) with a large amount of Excess population, both things Ireland did not have at this time. (Not that the Celts weren’t sophisticated, they were, but they weren’t Urban, they were Rural).

Again I'm not against putting in what the monks wrote but, it must be explained that it is most likely highly exaggerated Propaganda and has little or no Historical support.

--Hibernian 04:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't have the proper data to tell exactly what was done... the tale goes that one firstborn in three was sacrificed to him... we don't know if that was infants, cattle, or both, or how the victims were chosen... we can't even know how much of it is true. What we can do is pass on the data we have, what we mustn't is affirm it to be pure fact. if you got better ideas as to how to report the language, and how to parse history from myth and propaganda... we're listening. Don't be too sure about "mass sacrifice" though... Sure, there were no sacrifices by the thousands, but they might have been done by tens... I assume such sacrifices, in a given area or community happened between one and 4 times a year... now, if you take the old Wicker Man legend reported by Caesar and assume that this sacrifice was the way in which the death penalty for criminals was administered... even given the small size of a Celtic "kingdom", by doing it all once in the year, you might have more than a couple victims to burn at Bealtaine... This is pure speculation, of course, and mixing Gaulish culture with potentially quite different Irish customs but... just think about it. and remember... the legend mentions firstborns only, meaning that a given family would be tapped (for human sacrifice) only once... not every year, and it says one in three... now, which families were selected to sacrifice a child, we have no idea of. --Svartalf 12:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Sacrificing 1st Born" at this point in history could simply meant spilling one's seed, which would then be baked into "sun cakes" or whateve that bizarre thing was. This has been written about by many anti-Christian Pro-Pagana apologists who have studied the old ways.

It may not have been completely "Human Sacrifice" but rather a strange sexual ritual to bring boys into manhood. 2600:4040:9BB1:4B00:DE5:C065:E770:35CD (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Biased

This article reeks of bias and foolishness. Sacrificing 1/3 of their children??? Come on, that is totally anti-pagan propaganda. You'd think that Jack Chick wrote this article...

- Osarusan 3/17/06

Much of the nonsense that was written here (and elsewhere) about ancient Irish religious practice seems to derive from a peculiar bias that Northern European religion must be related to Semitic religion. There is of course no relationship between the two. Child sacrifice can be found in the Old Testament under the term ‘foundation sacrifice’ (where a first-born child was sacrificed and buried under the door stone, bizarrely to thank Yahweh for the family’s fruitfulness). There is no evidence of this ever occurring in Ireland or Britain, though there is plentiful archaeological evidence from Israel that this was a widespread practice in Judaism, in fact a central religious practice. Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou (who presented the BBC series “The Bible’s Hidden Secrets”) has written a book on the practice of child sacrifice in Judaism “King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities”, which demonstrates just how central it was to Jewish religious practice. It’s interesting that those propagandists for middle eastern religions attribute the worst features of their own religions to much more civilized European paganism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.240.211 (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Balderdash

This article definitely needs sources. It presents as historical fact, but I gaurantee supporting evidence is light to non-existant. How can we put a disclaimer as I have seen before?

Well I can see someone has been adding even more outlandish claims, "It had been smashed into several pieces, some of which lay nearby, probably by St.Patrick with a sledgehammer." This is nothing but wild speculation (as is allot of the stuff in this article).

The Archeological information about this stone, seems interesting (if it can be verified), but I think it belongs in a separate article. Generally this article needs to separate myth from Archaeology, because it is currently a jumble of both and will only really confuse people.

--Hibernian 17:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I've added a Disputed Accuracy and Neutrality template to the page, I'm not sure if that's the right template but hopefully it will get the article some much needed attention.--Hibernian 17:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We are into the realms of legend, and for what it's worth, these legends are recorded in a number of places. Doesn't mean they're true, but they're worth including in wikipedia. --MacRusgail 20:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes of-course they are worth including in Wikipedia, but it is how they are included that's the issue. We must separate History form Legend, unless facts can verify the claims made in the mythologies then they must be regarded purely as myth. I'm in favour of including all know Legendary texts in Wikipedia (whether they are legitimate or medieval propaganda pieces), but they must be explained in context not just presented as if they are historical truths.--Hibernian 22:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Layout

This page needs more section dividers for readability.

Phoenicians and Baal in Ireland?

The article also seems to assert that Crom is most definetly related to the Phoenician culture or Semetic culture. There is no proof of this, rather their are facts against it. The writer seems to re-assert the truthfulness of this connection by mentioning the "fire of Baal." The connection between this festival of the Celts and the Semetic or Phoenician cultures has been disproved, so then would this theory follow (a.k.a it would also be discredited). The Phoenicians, if any, came to Ireland or the British Isles it would have been in extremely small numbers. I altered the page info on this and wote the "(disproven)" statement at the end of the comment in which it states that the worship was brought by Phoenicians. After having done research into the genetic and cultural affect of the Phoenicians, I have concluded that their effect on Irish, Welsh, Scottish, and Ancient Britionic cultures is is completely negligable. There are websites that present cases that their was a influence that would be noteworthy, after looking into them they are extremely faulty. All of the facts that they keep representing have been disproven. The influence of the Phoenicians on the genetic background of these the aforementioned groups does not even exist. No Phoenicians have been found in the Y-chromosomes in the people here. There are J2 and Eb3 and so on which at first glace would seem to show outside influence but these were brought by the Romans, and not Phoenicians, the difference can be determined between the two. The once believed Phoenician Ogham stones were discovered as as just the opposite, not Phoenician. We have no proof that the Phoenicians came to the Brittish Isles, yet even if they did (is which somewhat unlikely, still quite plausible considering they knew it was there in the 6th cent. B.C. yet did not nessisarly go their themselves) they did not influence each other genetically or culturally, only economically to trade goods, not to live together. The idea also that the Semetic DNA is similar to the Celtic ones is also debunked. At first glance again, it would seem they are similar both sharing common haplogroups, but the subgroups of them are radically different and were Hg21 and Hg9 are common amoung Semetic cultures none, meaning absolutely none, are found in the Brittish Isles. Of coaurse modernly there are Jewish families who would have Hg21 and Hg9 in their DNA but this is excluding them. The Ancient Brittish Islanders have different Hg values, but the fact they both had Hg values lead to a misconseption that their is a direct link. In conclusion the Scots, the Irish, Welsh, and Britons are genetically and culturally the same group of people they were always though to be, and are influenced by an outside cultural forces (by which I mean outside of the "Celtic" region of the world, for example Greece).

- maybe give us some sources? and your name? -Fennel 08:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

While it is attested that the Phoenicians came up to the British isles in search of tin, and may have left descendants there, adoption of their religion (and all that stuff about the Moloch) seems extremely unlikely, it just did not fit with the Celtic way of doing things... any relationship between Irish and Phoenician human sacrifice practices reeks of nineteenth century amalgamation and can safely be discounted. Crom Cruach may have been as bloodthisty and greedy as Baal; he was not the same deity, and those who sacrificed to him did not do so for the same reasons. Svartalf 19:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

per Idylewylde: The ancestors of the Phoenicians were not Semitic. They were proto-Iranian/Indian migrants from the direction of the Indus who pased westward through Semitic terriroey to establish both Tyre and Crete, and the predomient Haplogroup among them was R-group, mostly R1, but also some R2. Looking for Semitic DNA to prove or diaprove Phoenician presence in the British Isles is, therefore, ludicrous. The appearance of the word Baal in Celtic culture is not an indication of Semitic religious practice, no more than the appearance of the word Mage in Latin, borrowed from the Persian word Magi, world indicate Zoroastorian religion. Idylewylde 09:32, 17 September 2012 (UCT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.133.78 (talk)

The meaning of the name

Cromm Cruaich clearly means 'the curved (stone?) of the tumulus' from Proto-Celtic *Croucacrumbas with Welsh cognates. See Macbain's etymological dictionary of the Gaelic language!! Where on earth 'bloody crescent' comes from, is anybody's guess.

From the Dictionary of the Irish Language Based on Old and Middle Irish Materials (Dublin 1990). Cromm (earlier cromb means "bent, stooped, crooked" (adj); or it can be a noun, i.e. a bent, stooped, crooked thing. "Curved" seems reasonable. "Crescent" is a bit of a reach, but possible. Crúach has a number of possible meanings: (n) a stack of corn; (adj) bloody, gory, from crú, blood, gore, plus the standard adjectival suffix -ach; or (n) slaughter, wounding. A quick look finds croch, gallows, which might be related to your crouca-, but inflects as croich or cruich, not cruach. So whatever it might have meant originally, it seems that in the Old and Middle Irish period it wasn't understood as "tumulus". "Bloody crescent" is a reasonable explanation of the name - just because you've got a different one doesn't automatically invalidate the others. But one that occurs to me - "the curved (one) of the stack of corn" sounds like a sickle. Maybe the stories of human sacrifice in exchange for agricultural fertility came from a play on the alternative meanings of crúach? --Nicknack009 19:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed some of the Crap

I've removed a section of the article which is particularly badly written and Anti-Historical, and well, basically complete crap.

This article is frankly terrible, (well, there are a few good pieces of information in it), most of it is basically speculation on a few lines of Medieval text, with every wild theory you can imagine being thrown in.

It needs a complete rewrite.

--Hibernian 03:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for starting! It is a garble as it stands... definitely needs a complete rewrite.--Fennel 04:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to to disagree that this article is completely c*** and I feel saddened that some users would belittle and insult other people's contributions to the Wikipedia experiment. In my opinion the issue of Crom Cruach should be seperated between the religion and the practices in the same way that a normal currently existening place would to try and completely neutralise the voice. It would be a step in the wrong direction to completely re-write it since the current version can be saved.

The facts just need to be re-written; that is all.

--WiseGuyScunthorpe

I tend to agree that the changes needed in this article are fairly extensive. Sticking to (and citing) published sources would be a good start. Nareek 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What History Is This?

I have never heard of crom being a sun god, in fact isn't the complete opposite? Form my minor research "the twisted maggot" was a dark god and lord of the worms (not a solar animal) who's job it was to recycle the negative energy by ingesting it in much the same way as a worm breaks up the soil, that’s why people were sacrificed to him because they were usually 'evil'(full of negativity) so where all this stuff about him being a sun god and a fertility god is a bit well wrong. I suggest the author reads the Slaine comics who at least in this case are genaraly right and have got the jist of it unlike the author of this article.

More factual inaccuracy

The article mentions Samhain falling on November 1st and that it later became Halloween. Halloween is from Old English "All hallows' eve", and is the day before All Saint's Day, November 1st. So either Samhain was on November 1st, and didn't become Halloween but instead became All Saint's Day, or it fell on October 31st and became Halloween. Which is it?

Rewrite begun

I've had a go at the complete rewrite that's been requested, with reference to all mentions in medieval Irish literature. Despite what the article previously said, there's no reference to Crom in Tírechán's Life of Patrick. I've rewritten the archaeology section, partly for style, partly because it's not universally agreed that the Killycluggin Stone is in fact Crom, and I've taken out all references to it being a phallic symbol - just look at this photo of the replica, there's no way on earth that's phallic! The section still needs referencing though. I intend to consult two references given (Festival at Lughnasa (Oxford Univ. Press, 1962) by Máire Mac Neill, and "Killinagh Church and Crom Cruaich" by Oliver Davies in Ulster Journal of Archaeology, Volume 2, 1939) to find out what information they supplied, and cite them properly. --Nicknack009 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'replica' does not really fit the real parts. I don't know what the real stone looked like, but certainly different from the 'replica'. Also I don't know if all pieces have been found, if a thorough investigation of the ground has been done, if remodeling has been attempted in a serious manner. So far all the talk about phallic or not looks like speculation to me. Tomdo08 (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crom Cruach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704062055/http://www.shee-eire.com/magic%26mythology/gods%26goddess/Celtic/Gods/Crom-Cruaich/Page1.htm to http://www.shee-eire.com/magic%26mythology/gods%26goddess/Celtic/Gods/Crom-Cruaich/Page1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Jocelyn of Furness

I believe that the "Jocelyn" who wrote the Life and Acts of Saint Patrick is Jocelyn of Furness, see also here via archive.org Marcas.oduinn (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Robin of Sherwood

In the eponymous Robin of Sherwood episode, it translates ‘Crom Crúach’ as ‘bloody hunchback’. I don’t know how valid this translation is but it might be worth noting this in the article somewhere.Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"Crooked, blood-soaked" actually. 86.143.130.200 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)