The role of druids outside of Britain...

[Faol-chù]

This is probably best for a new thread... but in ancient Greece (for the most part) priests played no significant function in the spiritual lives of the people... they did not need 'mediators to the gods'... and even familiarizing myself with the other paths there seems to be a rift between some CR groups and modern Druidry over what the actual role of the ancient Druids were... and as I understand it, there are some CR groups don't recognize Druids as playing a significant role (if any) outside the British Islands.

I would like more information about this, because I have been involved in Celtic studies for about 8 years now, and the only time I've ever come across this is when a particular druid group tries to claim that the druids originally arose in Britain (in the time of Stonehenge). This is easily disputed simply by the similaritiy of mythology, cosmology, and social structure between the Vedic people and the Celts. They obviously were influenced by a common cultural factor, and the archaeological record shows that the Vedic record is older.

In addition, if the druids' role was insignificant, it would be interesting to know why Caesar was so keen on either schmoozing with the druids (to sway them politically) or killing those who wouldn't be schmoozed..in Gaul.

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Tim]

I just want to remind you that my statement only made the claim that there is a rift that exists between some CR groups and modern Druidry, not to argue their position for them.

- Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism: Role of clergy. Witchvox. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usma&c=trads&id=6645

CR is not a "Religion of Clergy" as Wicca and general Druidism tend to be. Warriors, farmers, ranchers, writers, craftspeople and many others may follow a household or homesteading path, or worship and practice with a group that has clergy.

- Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism: Celtic Reconstructionism and Neo-Druidry, (2006, August 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:23, September 7, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism#Celtic_Reconstructionism_and_Neo-Druidry&oldid=72478688

There are some CR philosophies which downplay the role of the druidic office specifically in preference to a more general view of Indo-European priesthood (making the argument that the Druids may simply have been a very successful school of priestcraft, and possibly not even completely pan-Celtic), or to the successors of druids such as the filí and seanachies.

This is not to say that there is no connection between Neo-Druid groups and CR. Some Neo-Druid groups (notably, Ár nDraíocht Féin (ADF), the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids (OBOD), and Keltria) have similar methodologies of reconstruction, or have taken up CR methodologies recently. The ADF, in particular, have long used CR-type techniques, but many CRs criticize them for their pan-Indo-European focus, resulting in such oddities as "Vedic Druids" and "Roman Druids".

Other differences between CR groups and Neo-Druid groups can include such elements as differing ideas on hierarchical structures and acceptance of Enlightenment-era druidic revivals. Some philosophical differences exist as well, especially in terms of what "Druid" means. Some Neo-Druidic groups call anyone with an interest in Celtic Spirituality a "druid", and refer to the practice of Celtic spirituality as "Druidry", while CR groups tend to look at the older definition, seeing it as an office that requires decades of training and experience and is only attained by a small number of practitioners.

- About Druids and Druidry. paganachd.com. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from http://www.paganachd.com/faq/druids.html

Those of us who do use the word “druid” to describe ourselves usually only do so after much soul-searching, many years of study and practice, and after other elders in the community acknowledge us as such. It is never a title taken out of the blue because we feel like it. CR is not in and of itself a form of modern “Druidism” or “Neo-Druidism” though a number of CRs (Celtic Reconstructionists) consider themselves to be on a druidic path, and working towards being worthy of the title. The acknowledgement of this title (draoí in Irish) usually comes only after many years of contributing substantially to the local and online CR communities.

Anyone presenting themselves to a CR (Celtic Reconstructionist) group or individual who claims this title is likely to be quizzed on their knowledge and experience rather than being taken at face value. This is not meant as an insult, it is simply that we hold the title in high regard and believe that only those qualified should bear it. Anyone can call themselves a druid, but few genuinely live up to the claim. Furthermore, such quizzes of knowledge are attested in the literature as having occurred between druids, so if there is a problem with it, blame the Celts.

- Celtic Restorationist. (July 30, 2006 09:41 am UTC) Reconstructionist Paganism's Journal. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from

A good bit of what goes by the name of "druidry" has little, if anything, to do with what can be ascertained from the extant sources of what ancient Irish, Welsh, and Gaulish (as the three most well-known and widespread examples) religious practice involved. A good bit of it is Wicca with some haphazard Celtic things thrown in; while some of it is more due to ideas from the late 18th century which have been passed on since then and not further investigated.

- WHAT WE MEAN BY CELTIC RECONSTRUCTIONISM: WHAT WE ARE NOT ABOU. IMBAS.org. Retrieved September 7, 2006, http://www.imbas.org/imbas/what_we_mean.html

WHAT WE ARE NOT ABOUT Ceremonial Magick or traditions influenced by it such as Wicca.
Romantic Revival Druidism (anything inspired by Iolo Morganwg or the Druidic movements of the 18th and 19th centuries).
Eclecticism (combining Celtic religion with other cultural traditions).

...and let me add this article too long to post: Celtic Shamans by another name? (http://www.arizonahealingtours.com/shamanic/SJ3.html)

[Faol-chù]

What all of those quotes you quoted are saying is **not** THAT *historically* the druids did not play a large part in society, but, instead, that FOR PURPOSES OF RECONSTRUCTION IN THE MODERN DAY, they have downplayed the idea of being a 'druid'.

Among the reasons for this are, firstly, the very fact that the word 'druid' holds so little meaning today because everyone is a self-proclaimed druid, but also, because the druids *did* play such a large role in society, they do not care to reconstruct that aspect. They are, in effect, (possibly with good reason) a little afraid of the power that such people might hold today.

Again, this idea of downplaying the idea of druids is NOT for anything other than modern construction...

NONE of those reconstructionists (I've been on many lists and talked to many people, including the people who wrote that bit you quoted) every said that the druids HISTORICALLY did not play a large role in society.

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Tim]

I don't know guy... you can choose to read what was written, or read into it what you want to take away.

[Faol-chù]

I don't know guy... you can choose to read what was written, or read into it what you want to take away.

Actually, I'm not a guy, I'm a girl (a mature one)....

And I was privy to many of the conversations that eventually led to this article (and the FAQ's of which they are now a part)., as I have participated on reconstructionist lists for years. I'm well aware of *why* the article was written and the descrepancies on which the author felt the need to take an 'official stand'.

That *is* the point of the article...what MODERN DAY RECONSTRUCTIONISTS are doing....not what was done historically.

Something else that MODERN DAY RECONSTRUCTIONISTS have agreed upon is that human sacrifice is NOT something that they wish to perpetuate, although they DO AGREE THAT IT WAS LIKELY DONE IN THE PAST....just as an example of what I'm getting at.

Context is everything.

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Tim]

Actually, there are several articles from several sources...

Now... like I said... I'm not here to defend the positions of others, I am only illustrating an obvious rift between what is CR and Modern Druidry...

Now as far as Reconstructionism, I do feel qualified to say something about that... it goes against the Reconstructionist's philosophy and methodology to intentionally downplay a culturally significant role... they will place it in proper perspective... your comparison to removing human sacrifice because modern man has evolved beyond such practices with the placing of the Druid in context is simply ludicrous. The articles make statements to the effect that you can't base Celtic spirituality solely on the Druid as the modern Druidry movement does... or that there does not seem to be evidence that the Druids were pan-Celtic... or taking issue with the ADF's pan-Indo-European focus... or that CR groups place the Druid in context as a role within the larger group... or any of of number of points made in these articles... they do not in any way imply a fear of the Druid's position or a choice to intentionally diminish their historically accurate role... but if that's what you choose to believe, then that is what you choose to believe.

[Faol-chù]

Actually, there are several articles from several sources...

I'm sorry, I was speaking specifically of the Imbas Article, although the paganachd article came out of the same discrepancy.



Now... like I said... I'm not here to defend the positions of others, I am only illustrating a obvious rift between what is CR and Modern Druidry...

Make no mistake, there *is* a rift between CR and Modern Druidry, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the druids played a significant role in society, but about other factors...

One HUGE one is whether or not druidism is rooted in Celtic culture, or the wider Indo-European culture, which is what I was describing in my opening post to this thread...and for which there is evidence to the contrary.

The other, is whether the title druid (or draoi, or any other number or words meaning the same thing in a different Celtic language) could have any place in modern society.

NOBODY SAID that the druids did not play a significant role in Celtic culture....only whether or not they thought the right to the title should henge on it being within the framework of Celtic culture.

[quote}Now as far as Reconstructionism, I do feel qualified to say something about that... it goes against the Reconstructionist's philosophy and methodology to intentionally downplay a culturally significant role... they will place it in proper perspective... your comparison to removing human sacrifice because modern man has evolved beyond such practices with the placing of the Druid in context is simply ludicrous.

The articles make statements to the effect that you can't base Celtic spirituality solely on the Druid as the modern Druidry movement does... or that there does not seem to be evidence that the Druids were pan-Celtic... or taking issue with the ADF's pan-Indo-European focus... or that CR groups place the Druid in context as a role within the larger group... or any of of number of points made in these articles... they do not in any way imply a fear of the Druid's role or a choice to intentionally diminish their historically accurate role... but if that's what you choose to believe, then that is what you choose to believe.[/quote]


You know, it's obvious to me that you know very little about either Celtic culture or the modern groups who practice some form of the religion. Anyone who has ever spent time in any of those boards understands the arguments made in those quotes and the fact that they are talking about several different aspects of the druid/not druid argumement you posted quote from. You are conflating them and trying to turn it into one...And NONE OF THEM HAVE SAID THAT THE ROLE OF THE DRUIDS WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT IN CELTIC CULTURE...Although if you look at it as an 'Indo-European' phenomenon, then, perhaps it wasn't.

And I guess if somebody's reconstructing a religion (and believe me, there are arguments about whether that's ever POSSIBLE with Celtic religion), they can surely put in what they like and leave out what they don't. (Although I cannot personally conceive of how taking out human sacrifice does not alter the whole thing significantly.)

There are more arguments about this than you know in the CR / self-styled Celt community (which is why there are so many reconstructionist groups) .And you have taken a few that just happen to involve the druids quite out of context.

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Tim]

Not only does there seem to be the Celtic/Indo-European argument... there also seems to be a pan-Celtic argument as stated in one of the above articles... there also seems to be an issue with the word being used as an all encompassing term... and also the unchallenged influence of the 18th century revivalists movement... I'm not stating that the Druids didn't have a role or that the role was not significant with some of the Celtic tribes... only that CRs are more narrowly defining the term based on their perception of the Druids historical context... it has nothing to do with fear.

[Faol-chù]

Not only does there seem to be the Celtic/Indo-European argument... there also seems to be a pan-Celtic argument as stated in one of the above articles...

There is a theory that the Celts scattered the areas furthest away from Britain (and well outside of Gaul, as well) may have been too far away for the druids to minister to them...We have absolutely no evidence to back it up, though, as we have very little to nearly none of their mythology, etc., to make a comparison.



there also seems to be an issue with the word being used as an all encompassing term...

I'm not sure which article you are getting that from, so I cannot respond...although I do know that some people claim that those groups in the British Isles were not "Celts"...
The truth of the matter is that the crux of the reason the people in the British Isles are often referred to as "Celts" is because they were linguistically related to the Keltoi in Gaul. (They spoke/speak different dialects of the same language.) They also, though, apparently shared other cultural similarities....including the apparent status and importance of druids.



and also the unchallenged influence of the 18th century revivalists movement...

Yep...that's a biggie...And one of the biggest reasons CRs tend to distance themselves from the whole 'druid' thing.




I'm not stating that the Druids didn't have a role or that the role was not significant with some of the Celtic tribes...

Their pivotal role most certainly obviously extended well outside of Britain.



only that CRs are more narrowly defining the term based on their perception of the Druids historical context... it has nothing to do with fear.

Having been in on quite a few of the conversations, I'll have to disagree with you on that...There are people who do not think *anybody* should have the kind of power today that was weilded by the druids...They believe that they are obsolete...and there is some fear regarding what would happen should people come to depend on a group of people in that same manner.
Interestingly, its often people with a more traditionalist bent (though they often still consider themselves to be CR), who have had contact with the living cultures who tend to feel this way.

[Tim]

There is a theory that the Celts scattered the areas furthest away from Britain (and well outside of Gaul, as well) may have been too far away for the druids to minister to them...We have absolutely no evidence to back it up, though, as we have very little to nearly none of their mythology, etc., to make a comparison.

I'm not sure which article you are getting that from, so I cannot respond...although I do know that some people claim that those groups in the British Isles were not "Celts"...
The truth of the matter is that the crux of the reason the people in the British Isles are often referred to as "Celts" is because they were linguistically related to the Keltoi in Gaul. (They spoke/speak different dialects of the same language.) They also, though, apparently shared other cultural similarities....including the apparent status and importance of druids.

Yep...that's a biggie...And one of the biggest reasons CRs tend to distance themselves from the whole 'druid' thing.

Their pivotal role most certainly obviously extended well outside of Britain.
Just to reiterate what I said in the "were the ancients all soft polytheists?" thread and at the beginning of this one, I am not specifically able to argue the CR position... but I am able to demonstrate from their writings that they have a very different perspective of the authentic role of the Druid in Celtic culture. I point you to the "Celtic Shamans by another name?" article which I did not quote but linked to at the beginning of this thread... the author brings up the fact that there was not a single Celtic culture but that there are actually various cultures each having their own indigenous nomenclature for various shamanic-like individuals... he states that it "does a bit of disservice" to interweave once intact pathways... he makes the statement that there is no such thing as a unified Druidic or Celtic shamanic tradition.... and that a good bit of the druidic practice was maintained within a more clan-based, family-based framework where particular people would have played certain roles that fell within the clan... he also goes on to state the Druid traditions and the Celtic shamanic expressions of the traditions can really be likened to the medicine ways of the First Nations, and that he has issues with the mixing and matching, grafting and splicing together of various strands of the Celtic traditions as if they are all the same or were somehow identical in the history of the traditions. The article states that it is a vast misunderstanding of the various Celtic cultures to homogenize each of them into a kind of melting pot spirituality, or a kind of pan-Celtic face lift, and compares modern Druidic movements to Wicca.


Having been in on quite a few of the conversations, I'll have to disagree with you on that...There are people who do not think *anybody* should have the kind of power today that was weilded by the druids...They believe that they are obsolete...and there is some fear regarding what would happen should people come to depend on a group of people in that same manner.
Interestingly, its often people with a more traditionalist bent (though they often still consider themselves to be CR), who have had contact with the living cultures who tend to feel this way.
I have no doubt that CRs see the modern Druidic movements as assigning too much to the role of Druid and that no person should weald that amount of power... but it does not change the fact that it appears many CRs are basing this on many of the points I already brought up... most specifically on unchallenged romanticized notions of the Druids from revivalists movements and the blind acceptance of fourth and fifth century writings as accurate accounts.

It is interesting that while CR groups take the time to describe the differences between modern Druids in the CR movement, one is hard-pressed to find any modern Druidic order that attempted to make the comparison or even mention CR in their online writings.

[Faol-chù]

Just to reiterate what I said in the "were the ancients all soft polytheists?" thread and at the beginning of this one, I am not specifically able to argue the CR position... but I am able to demonstrate from their writings that they have a very different perspective of the authentic role of the Druid in Celtic culture.

I have to ask, different from whom?


I point you to the "Celtic Shamans by another name?" article which I did not quote but linked to at the beginning of this thread... the author brings up the fact that there was not a single Celtic culture but that there are actually various cultures each having their own indigenous nomenclature for various shamanic-like individuals...

I read that article, (note that, nowhere does it claim to be a CR group) and I have to say that I think his particular views on this topic are curious, considering his tendancy to link 'shamanism' with Celtic culture. Either he's blending Native American ideaology with Celtic, OR he's using Michael Harner's definition for "shamanism"...which included flight into other worlds--for which there is absolutely NOTHING proven in Celtic culture, or proveable. (Although I have to agree, I have my suspicions that it did exist.)



he states that it "does a bit of disservice" to interweave once intact pathways... he makes the statement that there is no such thing as a unified Druidic or Celtic shamanic tradition....

First, note that he is referring to "shamanic tradition" .

You have to buy that the druids were actually 'shamen' in order to follow his thinking. We have absolutely NOTHING written in the hand of the druids which would prove any sort of shamanic flight, or ecstatic state. (Or, really, recorded by anyone else!)



and that a good bit of the druidic practice was maintained within a more clan-based, family-based framework where particular people would have played certain roles that fell within the clan...

I do agree with this stance on several different levels. Firstly, if one is talking about AFTER the demise of the druids, it seems clear to me that this was true...

Secondly, yes, I agree, that even BEFORE the decline of the 'druids' (as a class/caste/lawmaking body) , some of the 'druids' lived within the clan. (Ever heard of the big deal about celtic fostership which played a huge role in the interweaving/family ties of society?)




he also goes on to state the Druid traditions and the Celtic shamanic expressions of the traditions can really be likened to the medicine ways of the First Nations, and that he has issues with the mixing and matching, grafting and splicing together of various strands of the Celtic traditions as if they are all the same or were somehow identical in the history of the traditions.
The article states that it is a vast misunderstanding of the various Celtic cultures to homogenize each of them into a kind of melting pot spirituality, or a kind of pan-Celtic face lift, and compares modern Druidic movements to Wicca.

I agree with everything said here, in my heart of hearts. (Working closely with Scottish Gaelic culture, both of the Scottish Variety, and of the Nova Scotian variety, I most definitely concur with the sentiment expressed of noting differences.)

...However that does not change the fact that the druids were a CLASS, bordering on CASTE in Celtic culture. Julius Caesar writes fairly extensively about them in Gaul... What is recorded about them in Britain and Ireland reflect similarities in function in society (though the specific traditions from place to place definitely varied). They were not just priests, but they were judges, lawmakers, scientists, historians, architects...just to name a few. They were of INCREDIBLE importance to society both in Ireland, Britain, and, apparently (according to Julius Caesar, in part) in Gaul.

And again, I iterate, there is no coherent picture of what the historical druids actually did, or believed, in their own hand...Only accounts about them. Nothing about any of their ceremonies, or anything. (This is another reason some CR's take the position of not trying to 'reconstruct' what a 'druid''is.)



I have no doubt that CRs see the modern Druidic movements as assigning too much to the role of Druid and that no person should weald that amount of power... but it does not change the fact that it appears many CRs are basing this on many of the points I already brought up... most specifically on unchallenged romanticized notions of the Druids from revivalists movements and the blind acceptance of fourth and fifth century writings as accurate accounts.

And I do not dispute that...As a matter of fact, I believe I alluded to it in my first post in this thread. though I did not specifically use the term "Romantic Revival Druids", I was referring to them when I spoke of those groups who believed that 'druidism' started in Britain, before the Celts.


It is interesting that while CR groups take the time to describe the differences between modern Druids in the CR movement, one is hard-pressed to find any modern Druidic order that attempted to make the comparison or even mention CR in their online writings.

Well, it is interesting, though not suprising to me.

If they mention them, then that might make somebody interested in what it is that they are doing. Then they'll go check it out, and, if they actually research history and archaeology, they'll find that what their theories are based upon is easily challengeable.

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Tim]

I have to ask, different from whom?
I thought I made it clear that I was speaking only about the differences in perception of a Druid between CRs and the modern Druidic movements based on their own documentation.


I read that article, (note that, nowhere does it claim to be a CR group) and I have to say that I think his particular views on this topic are curious, considering his tendancy to link 'shamanism' with Celtic culture. Either he's blending Native American ideaology with Celtic, OR he's using Michael Harner's definition for "shamanism"...which included flight into other worlds--for which there is absolutely NOTHING proven in Celtic culture, or proveable. (Although I have to agree, I have my suspicions that it did exist.)
As I understand it, the word shaman derives from a Siberian tribal people... but I believe the author is using it in a broader sense of a tribal spiritual leader/medicine person... and the specific comparison to Native American tribes because of a belief that there were similar dynamics.


Secondly, yes, I agree, that even BEFORE the decline of the 'druids' (as a class/caste/lawmaking body) , some of the 'druids' lived within the clan. (Ever heard of the big deal about celtic fostership which played a huge role in the interweaving/family ties of society?)
So you view the Druids as having been a separate entity to the Celtic clans?


I agree with everything said here, in my heart of hearts. (Working closely with Scottish Gaelic culture, both of the Scottish Variety, and of the Nova Scotian variety, I most definitely concur with the sentiment expressed of noting differences.)

...However that does not change the fact that the druids were a CLASS, bordering on CASTE in Celtic culture. Julius Caesar writes fairly extensively about them in Gaul... What is recorded about them in Britain and Ireland reflect similarities in function in society (though the specific traditions from place to place definitely varied). They were not just priests, but they were judges, lawmakers, scientists, historians, architects...just to name a few. They were of INCREDIBLE importance to society both in Ireland, Britain, and, apparently (according to Julius Caesar, in part) in Gaul.
Now my perception is that most would generally take what Julius Caesar wrote with a grain of salt... and some CR's (as apposed to modern Druids) would opt for culturally authentic titles for those roles as apposed to a global title of Druid.


And again, I iterate, there is no coherent picture of what the historical druids actually did, or believed, in their own hand...Only accounts about them. Nothing about any of their ceremonies, or anything. (This is another reason some CR's take the position of not trying to 'reconstruct' what a 'druid''is.)
...or as one article stated, "the Druids may simply have been a very successful school of priestcraft, and possibly not even completely pan-Celtic"



Well, it is interesting, though not suprising to me.

If they mention them, then that might make somebody interested in what it is that they are doing. Then they'll go check it out, and, if they actually research history and archaeology, they'll find that what their theories are based upon is easily challengeable.
What's even more interesting is that the perception I had up till this post was that you were taking the position of the modern Druidic movement.

[Faol-chù]

I thought I made it clear that I was speaking only about the differences in perception of a Druid between CRs and the modern Druidic movements based on their own documentation.

Ok...that's fine. You did make it clear earlier, but in this post, I was not sure exactly to what you were referring.



As I understand it, the word shaman derives from a Siberian tribal people... but I believe the author is using it in a broader sense of a tribal spiritual leader/medicine person... and the specific comparison to Native American tribes because of a belief that there were similar dynamics.

Well, there *was* a similar dynamic...and that's what I'm talking about. That dynamic specifically includes/included ecstatic practice, or 'journeying' outside of one's own body (that's how Native American practice came to be called "shamanism"). But there is no evidence of that in Celtic practice (again, though I, personally believe that it was likely done)...Which is why a reconstructionist will tell you that the druids were not shamen.



So you view the Druids as having been a separate entity to the Celtic clans?

Well, the "clans" as we understand them to be now, are a product of medieval feudal society...Not that the Celts weren't 'clannish', but the groups were split up differently.
And no, I do not see the druids as LIVING separately from the rest of society...however they were the educated cast. There was a concerted effort to send the children of the educated class to go and live with (be fostered by) the other classes (farmers, etc.)...and often, in different areas to promote goodwill between groups.



Now my perception is that most would generally take what Julius Caesar wrote with a grain of salt... and some CR's (as apposed to modern Druids) would opt for culturally authentic titles for those roles as apposed to a global title of Druid.

Yes, Julius Caesar should be taken with a grain of salt...However, it's pretty clear that, generally-speaking when he wasn't trying to make the Celts look 'bad' (to justify his war campaign to the Roman senate and others in Rome) that he documented pretty well--and accurately. It is very clear that he had a certain amount of respect for the druids...so much so that he knew he needed to 'deal' with them before he could break the spirits of the tribes individually.

And, yes, many reconstructionists, especially those who bother to learn a language *do* opt for a cultural title...but it's not always a synonym for 'druid' (though it sometimes is).
There are quite a few terms which describe any number of people who do 'magic', etc., in the native languages...and often, especially those of a more 'traditionalist' bent will choose one of those.



...or as one article stated, "the Druids may simply have been a very successful school of priestcraft, and possibly not even completely pan-Celtic"

Oh, it's clear...they were much more than priests...There is quite a list of classical authors, alone, which paint a picture of them as being much more than priests. If they weren't *completely* pan-Celtic, they were certainly *nearly* pan-Celtic.



What's even more interesting is that the perception I had up till this post was that you were taking the position of the modern Druidic movement.

Yes, that *is* interesting...And it would explain a lot of your response to me...but I would not *ever* take the side of the 'modern druidic movement'.
I researched them years ago, and found that the 'history' they base their movement on just does not add up.
For what it's worth...I'm not reconstructionist, either (although I considered myself to be at one time). If I *had* to give my path, it would be Traditionalist....though I still have a lot of respect for most reconstructionist, for their tenacity and scholarship.

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Faol-chù]

Some links to some of the things written by Classical Authors about the druids...some of it specifically about the Gaulish druids:

http://www.imm.org.pl/bird/antyk.htm

http://druidsassignment.tripod.com/id6.html

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Tim]

Well, there *was* a similar dynamic...and that's what I'm talking about. That dynamic specifically includes/included ecstatic practice, or 'journeying' outside of one's own body (that's how Native American practice came to be called "shamanism"). But there is no evidence of that in Celtic practice (again, though I, personally believe that it was likely done)...Which is why a reconstructionist will tell you that the druids were not shamen.

Just to clarify... I was not talking about the dynamics between shamanism and Native American practice... but I think the author was illustrating the similarities in group dynamics of Native American tribes and the Celts... was trying to make the assertion that the druids were not a unified priesthood but a clan based one... just as Native American shamans (or medicine men, or whatever culturally specific name you wish to use) had similar practices and beliefs and can be classified similarly, one does not lump them all together into a single priesthood (even if there was cross-tribe sharing and learning)... and the author was using that to illustrate his point about the Celts.


Some links to some of the things written by Classical Authors about the druids...some of it specifically about the Gaulish druids:

http://www.imm.org.pl/bird/antyk.htm

http://druidsassignment.tripod.com/id6.html

Thank you!!

[Faol-chù]

but I think the author was illustrating the similarities in group dynamics of Native American tribes and the Celts... was trying to make the assertion that the druids were not a unified priesthood but a clan based one...


Considering the references to the Druids being trained in Britain and 'brought in' for murder trials and other major disputes (among other things), I am inclined to believe that there was an obvious unity of tradition, and that they were trained similarly.

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[Tim]

Just to expand the Native American comparison (and I'm surprised the author did not include it)... we can use as an example the Iroquois which was a confederation of six tribes that was also divided into a number of matrilineal clans... the government was known as the "Grand Council" and each tribe sent chiefs to act as representatives... most likely creating centralized roles for judges, lawmakers, historians, and such... now one would assume that the medicine men of these tribes did a good bit of sharing... but it did not create or imply a unified priesthood... or even that the civil roles filled by tribal Elders were priestly.

[Faol-chù]

You know, I understand this comparison between the Native Americans and the Celts better than you know. In some ways it's very obvious with a little study that the Native Americans and the Celts had very similar ways.

I even understand, and concur to some degree that there was a similarity between the role of the druids and the role of the native american medicine men in society, and probably in mediating between groups...

But the role of 'druid' was much more than a 'priesthood'. They were judges, lawyers, doctors, scientists, philosophers, historians, advisors to kings, and a multitude of functions.

Celtic society was, from my readings of Native American history, far more stratified that that of most native american groups. The druids were at the top of the heap. (The warriors where second and the farmers were at the bottom of the heap.) This is, btw, reflective of their cosmology. Druids - Sky: Warriors - Land: Farmers - Sea (the sea being 'Chaos, Fertility, etc.).

(Have you ever, btw, read anything by Dr. Bruce Lincoln?)

And again, I iterate that the record is clear that that the druids trained in Britain, and were 'brought in' to Gaul. See Julius Caesar. He had no reason to lie about that. He had been watching the druids very closely and gathering enough information about them to try to break them.

Considering the very strong similarity in pattern of the Celtic deity pattern, from tribe to tribe, there are very compelling reasons to believe that there was a common 'school' for them...at the very least, a common 'yardstick' by which they were all measured.



Just to expand the Native American comparison (and I'm surprised the author did not include it)... we can use as an example the Iroquois which was a confederation of six tribes that was also divided into a number of matrilineal clans... the government was known as the "Grand Council" and each tribe sent chiefs to act as representatives... most likely creating centralized roles for judges, lawmakers, historians, and such... now one would assume that the medicine men of these tribes did a good bit of sharing... but it did not create or imply a unified priesthood... or even that the civil roles filled by tribal Elders were priestly.

I still cannot get over the fact that, with all of the ranting this author has done about 'conflating cultures with one another', s/he insists upon insinuating that the Celts practiced "medicine traditions", and that they somehow both practiced "shamanism". It would be interesting, indeed to know the author's definition for "shamanism". She says:


But, in regards to names, the terms shaman, shamanism, and now 'shamanist' serve as a kind of universal nomenclature so that people from a variety of backgrounds and cultures can have a common yardstick for understanding what we're talking about.

Where is she getting her definition from? Exactly what IS it that they have in common that makes both the native american spiritualist and the druid 'shamen'? What is the yardstick? She never says, but she just keeps saying they are similar.

I offer this definition of shamanism, which is the most usual definition I have seen for it, and the one used by Michael Harner and his book about Core Shamanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism

Shamanism refers to a range of traditional beliefs and practices similar to Animism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism) that claim the ability to diagnose and cure human suffering and, in some societies, the ability to cause suffering. This is believed to be accomplished by traversing the axis mundi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_mundi) and forming a special relationship with, or gaining control over, spirits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_being). Shamans have been credited with the ability to control the weather, divination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divination), the interpretation of dreams, astral projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projection), and traveling to upper and lower worlds. Shamanistic traditions have existed throughout the world since prehistoric times.
Some anthropologists and religion scholars define a shaman as an intermediary between the natural and spiritual world, who travels between worlds in a trance state. Once in the spirit world, the shaman would commune with the spirits for assistance in healing, hunting or weather management.
Shamanism is based on the premise that the visible world is pervaded by invisible forces or spirits that affect the lives of the living. In contrast to animism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism) and animatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animatism), which any and usually all members of a society practice, shamanism requires specialized knowledge or abilities. It could be said that shamans are the experts employed by animists or animist communities. Shamans are not, however, often organized into full-time ritual or spiritual associations, as are priests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest).

Notice that one of the things that "shamen" do is astral projection. There absolutely not the FIRST SHRED OF EVIDENCE in Celtic folklore or ANYTHING that the Celts, much less the druids, did astral projection.

I agree that it is highly LIKELY that they did, but we do not know, and it is improper, IMHO, to assume that they did to the degree that it seem that the author is doing so.
They can do what they like and add astral projection to their path if they want to, but it is historically inaccurate and misleading to assert that they are 'the same' when we don't know that this particular practice is one that they shared...

Le meas,

Faol-chù

[omar]

Is Core Shamanisim, the name of M. Harnner's book? Mine is Way of the Shaman.

[Faol-chù]

Is Core Shamanisim, the name of M. Harnner's book? Mine is Way of the Shaman.



No, it's not the name of the book. The name is Way of the Shaman, the one you have. :weirdsmil I could not remember the exact name, but I knew it was about core shamanism. :)

Le meas,

Faol-chù