Log in

(no subject)

« previous entry | next entry »
Jan. 14th, 2008 | 01:57 pm
posted by: blacksealetters in gaulish_recon

I have a question about your approach to Gaulish Reconstructionism.

Are you:
1. A pre-roman Celtic reconstructionist
2. a gallo-roman syncretist
3. both/neither/other

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {5}


(no subject)

from: nantonos
date: Jan. 15th, 2008 04:52 am (UTC)

Interesting question, and it largely depends on how you define your terms. By pre-Roman do you mean (since you contrast it with Gallo-Roman) pre-conquest, or pre contact of any sort with the Roman culture?
For myself I'm more gallo-roman, but I don't see that as any more syncretic than any other options.

Reply | Thread

(Deleted comment)


(no subject)

from: chronarchy
date: Jan. 16th, 2008 03:54 am (UTC)

Gallo-Roman, myself.

Reply | Thread


(no subject)

from: endovelicon
date: Jan. 16th, 2008 07:07 pm (UTC)

Pre-Roman Celtic Reconstructionist, but being mainly Celtiberian and having as Patron a god as Romanized as Endovelicus I´m forced to deal with the Roman influence, that´s why I´m searching among the Gaulish cousins for some ideas ;-)

Reply | Thread


(no subject)

from: indus_brennii_f
date: Feb. 8th, 2008 12:10 am (UTC)

Gallo-Roman (with a focus on the Treveri), and for that reason, heedful of the fact that the Gauls of the imperial era were the inheritors of both the Gaulish and Roman traditions and participants in a still broader cultural encounter among the peoples of the Empire.

By the way, everybody, hello! I've been lurking via the web without having a livejournal ID, but have just signed up.

Reply | Thread