Archaeological Evidence for Druids

[KellyP]

A text that I am reading points out that to date there is no conclusive archaeological evidence pointing to a definitive Druid class within the Celtic societies of pre-Christian times. The writers of Greece and Rome tell us of Druids but physical evidence is lacking.

While I cannot in my memory recall reading of any archaeological findings pointing to anything that one might use to say "See, Druids DID exist!" I can't imagine what sorts of items one might find as pointing to Druid life. If there are no items written by a person who identifies himself as a Druid, what else could there be? What could last the centuries to enlighten us today?

[Stang]

A text that I am reading points out that to date there is no conclusive archaeological evidence pointing to a definitive Druid class within the Celtic societies of pre-Christian times. The writers of Greece and Rome tell us of Druids but physical evidence is lacking.

While I cannot in my memory recall reading of any archaeological findings pointing to anything that one might use to say "See, Druids DID exist!" I can't imagine what sorts of items one might find as pointing to Druid life. If there are no items written by a person who identifies himself as a Druid, what else could there be? What could last the centuries to enlighten us today?

Exactly what archeological evidence do you expect to find? Other than a few inscriptions in stone about Druids. And since they were famous for not putting important things into writing, don't expect to find a lot of that sort of thing.

There is archeological evidence on the European continent of a Celtic style of physical culture and ritual practice spreading westward into France, Spain and northern Italy, and eventually reaching Britain and Ireland. However, there's no archeological evidence of a specific Druidic class, other than the evidence that the artistic style that's associated with the Celts is accompanied by an apparent change in ritual practice, with underground barrows being sealed off, structures such as Stonehenge ceasing to be used as ritual sites, and nemetons apparently being used for ritual practice in oak groves. And wherever Celtic style physical artifacts began to appear, offerings started being placed in wells or buried in shafts, and broken weapons and other objects were thrown into lakes as sacrificial offerings. All this accords with what the Greeks and Romans wrote about how the Celts practiced their religion under the leadership of the Druids. But there's no archeological evidence proving the existence of Druids, any more than there's any archeological evidence proving the existence of the flamens of ancient Rome, or Pentacostal ministers in modern North American society. The available evidence about who was or is actually leading certain types of spiritual activity is mostly in writing, in all of those cases.

The Romans and Greeks actually wrote quite a bit about the continental Celts and their cousins in Britain and Ireland, including details about their learned class, who the Greeks and Romans indicated were the judges, poets, historians, priests and priestesses and bards of Celtic society. In fact, although the Romans indicated that there were numerous Celtic, Germanic and Celto-Germanic tribes throughout Europe, with the distinction between Celts and Germans not always being clear during this period, the Romans often seem to have classified tribes as either Celtic or Germanic on the basis of whether they had Druids. However, although the Romans often referred to the Celtic learned class in general as Druids, they also indicated that there were actually three main branches of the Celtic learned class, the Bards, Ovates and Druids. The Bards were the teachers and entertainers, the Ovates were heavily into divination and exercised what we'd generally consider to be a priestly function, and the Druids were the poets, judges and lawmakers, as well as being the political advisors of kings and queens.

The Roman poet, Virgil, who was actually a Latinized Celt from northern Italy, and whose aunt was a Druid, provided some information about the Druids that I think we can consider to be fairly accurate. Other Roman writers often using second hand sources or, in the case of someone like Julius Caesar, had a political agenda, so we can't accept everything they say as gospel. But a lot of their comments accord with the physical evidence of ritual practice in Celtic settlements, and with information that appears in ancient Welsh and Irish tales that were first written down centuries later. For example, in the Cattle Raid of Cooley, Queen Medbh discusses the possibility of raiding another tribe with her Druid advisor, then receives a prophecy about the likely outcome from a young woman Ovate who arrives on the scene. Of course, the Druids and Ovates were eventually displaced by christian priests, and the last written records of local rulers in Ireland and Wales having Druid advisors occur about 1000 years ago. But the written record indicates that the Bardic class continued to exist in Ireland until the 18th century, when the Bards were vigourously suppressed by the English conquerers, who were trying to break the rebellious spirit of the Irish.

For further information, I'd suggest reading books by authors like Peter Berresford Ellis or Miranda Green, academics who write books aimed at the general public. However, if you're looking for a 2000 year old lead certificate saying that some individual was ordained as a Druid, you're not going to find it. The Druids were famous for not writing down their most important information, because they preferred to pass it on orally. That's something that all their contemporaries agreed on. So I think that an author who makes a big deal about there being no archeological evidence for the existence of Druids is just being silly. What archeological evidence should there be?

[KellyP]

For further information, I'd suggest reading books by authors like Peter Berresford Ellis or Miranda Green, academics who write books aimed at the general public.

Thank you for the excellent summary of classic references to ancient Druids and for recommendations from current authors. Clearly you know a great deal about this subject and I will try to follow your suggestions. Silly me and my questions.

[_Banbha_]

A text that I am reading points out that to date there is no conclusive archaeological evidence pointing to a definitive Druid class within the Celtic societies of pre-Christian times. The writers of Greece and Rome tell us of Druids but physical evidence is lacking.

While I cannot in my memory recall reading of any archaeological findings pointing to anything that one might use to say "See, Druids DID exist!" I can't imagine what sorts of items one might find as pointing to Druid life. If there are no items written by a person who identifies himself as a Druid, what else could there be? What could last the centuries to enlighten us today?

Great post Stang. It had me trying to remember the classical author who compared the druids to the Pythagoreans.

As far as physical evidence, in Ireland there are over three hundred stone carvings with Ogham. This has been attributed to the Druids and/or to the transitional period between pre and Christian Ireland as well. I suppose there are differing schools of thought here and I have not yet studied the Ogham in depth.

While there are not many other solid places in Ireland we point too and say Druid, there is still evidence of there exsistance in the writtings of the early and medieval Christians that have been touched upon.

We do have a complex and sophisticated system of laws that was passed down from pre-Christian times as well that was certainly devised by specialist scholars.

Maybe off topic as far as archaelogical finds but I find this translation of Christian monks referring to Druids especially intriguing:

"But if it be conceded that all things made from earth can be changed into one another by turns - as for instance animal to tree, bread to stone, man to bird - then none of these could remain firmly within the bounds of its own nature. We would seem, indeed, to give our assent to the laughable tales told by the Druids, who say that their forbears flew through the ages in the form of
birds; and in such cases we would speak of God not as the Governor, but as the changer of natures. Far be it from us to do so ...."

From the book A Single Ray of the Sun (http://www.amazon.com/Single-Ray-Sun-John-Carey/dp/1891271121)


The Colloquoy of the Two Sages (http://perso.orange.fr/sejh/keltia/colloquy.html) is a fascinating dialogue between a young and old sage (read druid) that has much pre-Christain wisdom with some obvious Christian overlays. There is a book written about it with a new translation in The Making of a Druid: Hidden Teachings from The Colloquy of Two Sages (http://www.innertraditions.com/Product.jmdx?action=displayDetail&id=212&searchString=0-89281-874-3) which I have not read yet but was recommended to me highly.


An article of interest:
The Excellence of Ancient Word: Druid Rhetorics from Ancient Irish Tales" (http://www.imbas.org/articles/excellence_of_the_ancient_word.html)

While the ancient Irish tales abound with warriors and kings (not to forget Queen Medbh!), another figure at almost every turn emerges to out- rank them. Usually referred to as the "druid", this person upon closer inspection is seen to be not any stereotypical wizard with his potions and paraphernalia, but a poet who, instead of having to memorize rote "secret spells", produced spontaneous verse often in a deliberately archaic diction. A lengthy essay on the philosophy and practise of Irish druids is beyond the scope of this book, but given the misrepresentation of druids in the popular media, a few summary remarks are in order.

In the ancient Irish tales Irish druids are frequently depicted in detail. They bare no resemblance at all to the white-robed oak- worshippers of Julius Caesar. Irish druids wore, not white hooded robes, but rainbow capes, often feathered tunics and head-dresses (note, in the kast roscin this collection, how the druids mock the monks' hooded robes!). The important trees were rowan, yew, and hazel, and mistletoe was not found in ancient Ireland. While they occasionally carried magic wands and stones, in the far great majority of cases druids' only magic "tool" was their voices. They were, emphatically, not "pagan priests" and most of what we think of as priestly functions fell to the local king or tribal chief. They were sages, advisors, "wizards" - their closest modern equivalents would be scholars sometimes called upon to be government advisors, although in many cases they were unaffiliated with the rulers and conducted what we nowadays would call private practice..........


:)

[Stang]

..................
Silly me and my questions.

I was referring to the person who questioned the supposed lack of archeological evidence for Druidry as silly. I don't think that there was anything silly about your asking what other people thought about the idea. And I don't consider myself to be an expert on the Druids, but I've been reading and studying the subject for long enough to hopefully have an idea where to suggest that people look for accurate answers to their questions.

If a person hasn't yet spent time studying a particular issue, an author may sound quite convincing even when they're saying something that doesn't really make sense. But I think that once you've read something about the Celts and their Druids by a readable academic like Peter Berresford Ellis, you'll have some basis for evaluating what other authors have to say about Druidry. Some modern Revivalist Druids authors really know their stuff, while others are talking nonsense, and it can be difficult to separate them out until you read what the academics say and what the Greek and Roman contemporaries of the Druids had to say about them.

But on the subject of archeological evidence for Druidry, I should probably have mentioned Ogham, as WildDryad pointed out. And another one of WyldeDryad's comments reminded me of an important written source of information about the Druids that I neglected to mention, the Brehon Laws. The only version we have them in is the later christian version, which is presumably more patriarchial and less woman friendly than the original version would have been. According to legend, Saint Patrick revised the laws to make them more christian. But the scholars seem to agree that the Brehon Laws were originally developed by Druids in their role as jurists. And even the later christian version of those laws shows an emphasis on justice for all, regardless of class, and more respect for women than would have been the case with other legal systems in Europe during the same period. So the Brehon Laws are worth a read in order to understand Druidic thinking about socieity, and to understand just how broad and important the influence of the Druids was in the Celtic world. The educated class of the Celts is often depicted in modern literature as doing mainly Ovate type things, such as sacrifices and divination. But the educatinal role of the Bards and the legal and political role of the actual Druids would have influenced people's lives at least as much as the prophecies of the Ovates.

[Maggie]

Thank you for the excellent summary of classic references to ancient Druids and for recommendations from current authors. Clearly you know a great deal about this subject and I will try to follow your suggestions. Silly me and my questions.

It's kinda hard to decide exactly what archaeological evidence would substantiate even an educated guess about the existance of such a function. As far as I know the ogham inscriptions are the only concrete remains--and even then is it known absolutely that the druids were the only ones who knew and used those characters?

In many cases the existance of any class or status has been constructed and supported by both literature and by grave goods found in burials, in some cases by grave goods alone. Some of the "cacausian" mummies found in China had grave goods leading to speculation about the function of those individuals. Is this the kind of thing you mean?


Maggie

[LadyDracona1984]

Rather then look at archeological evidence of the druids existance, try looking at the literary existance. If you look at early texts you can find many references to the druids not only in the texts written by the Greeks and Romans but in the ones written after the Christianization of Ireland. The references of druidism are a bit more obscure do to the fact that the Irish were rather fervant Christians however the Anglo-Saxxons had this bit of an issue with the Celts and decided that they weren't Christianized the correct way and set about trying to re-Christianize them.

Anyway I digress, some text I suggest to find the evidence you are looking for are Gerald of Wales The History and Topography of Ireland, there is an electronic database put out by the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, called CELT it has also sorts of documents from Irish history on the internet while not as accurate as in book form it would provide you with a good place to begin especially if you enter a search for the word druid or druids... try priest as well, they wouldn't necessarily call them a druid.
here is the site.
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/publishd.html

hope that helps

[Maggie]

The question does not concern literary evidence. The question asked was what kind of physical archaeological evidence might be expected, postulated, guessed at, anticipated...for the existance of druids.

Ritual items, high status dress, lots of grave goods?


Maggie

[Willow Rosette]

Wouldnt Stonehenge and other stonce circles that mark the solstices be physical archaelogical proof? I dont know much on this subject so this is just me speculating.....

[Faol-chù]

The question does not concern literary evidence. The question asked was what kind of physical archaeological evidence might be expected, postulated, guessed at, anticipated...for the existance of druids.

Ritual items, high status dress, lots of grave goods?


Maggie


The problem is that, without detailed writing (which was not the norm in Celtic culture until after Christian influence), when archaeologists find such archeological items, they still have to guess, and try to put this stuff in context with things that WERE written in that time.

That said, there is no question in my mind of the existence of the druids. That can be proven by linguistic evidence alone (the words --and lore--that exist in the actual Celtic languages that refer to these groups of people). The problem is figuring out exactly what form their rituals, etc., may have taken.
Unfortunately, in the absence of such evidence, there have been a lot of assumptions made that suppose they would have taken a form similar to that of the Greeks and/or Romans...When actually, the cultural information gives us clues that it likely wasn't like most people A-S-S-U-M-E.

Le meas,

[Faol-chù]

Wouldnt Stonehenge and other stonce circles that mark the solstices be physical archaelogical proof? I dont know much on this subject so this is just me speculating.....


No...Those stone formations pre-dated Celtic culture in those areas....By about 500 years or more.
Druids apparently had their rituals in sacred groves of trees, rather than in stone circles.
That does not mean, however, that there was not some sort of folklore, perhaps even ordained by the druids that dealt with such formations....Just that they were NOT the ritual areas of the Celts or druids.

Le meas,

[Maggie]

The problem is that, without detailed writing (which was not the norm in Celtic culture until after Christian influence), when archaeologists find such archeological items, they still have to guess, and try to put this stuff in context with things that WERE written in that time.

That said, there is no question in my mind of the existence of the druids. That can be proven by linguistic evidence alone (the words --and lore--that exist in the actual Celtic languages that refer to these groups of people). The problem is figuring out exactly what form their rituals, etc., may have taken.
Unfortunately, in the absence of such evidence, there have been a lot of assumptions made that suppose they would have taken a form similar to that of the Greeks and/or Romans...When actually, the cultural information gives us clues that it likely wasn't like most people A-S-S-U-M-E.

Le meas,

Existance of druids is not being questioned.

The question is--what kind of things might be considered archaeological evidence of druids?

Golden sickles? Bunches of sticks enscribed wth ogham? Textiles with a particular number of colors? A bull hide? The use of woad in Britain predates the Celts, by the way, so its presence isn't automatically even a celtic burial. The original poster made it clear the point was for discussion and speculation, not proof. What kinds of things, even with the scant concrete knowledge we have, MIGHT be considered druidic items?

Actually given the path of travel and settlement Germanic and Norse similiarities might be more reasonable.

Maggie

[Stang]

The problem is that, without detailed writing (which was not the norm in Celtic culture until after Christian influence), when archaeologists find such archeological items, they still have to guess, and try to put this stuff in context with things that WERE written in that time.

That said, there is no question in my mind of the existence of the druids. That can be proven by linguistic evidence alone (the words --and lore--that exist in the actual Celtic languages that refer to these groups of people). The problem is figuring out exactly what form their rituals, etc., may have taken.
Unfortunately, in the absence of such evidence, there have been a lot of assumptions made that suppose they would have taken a form similar to that of the Greeks and/or Romans...When actually, the cultural information gives us clues that it likely wasn't like most people A-S-S-U-M-E.

Le meas,

I've seen some speculation that the rituals of the Druids were probably more like the early Vedic style than anything Greek or Roman, at least prior to the Roman conquest of so much of the Celtic territories. But given the unreliability of Roman accounts of even those rituals that were done in front of outsiders, and the secrecy about rituals that the Druids were famous for, questions about the exact nature of Druidic ritual does seem to be the biggest blank spot on the record.

The Gods of the Celts by Miranda Green is just one example of many scholarly examinations of what we can and can't determine about Celtic religion from the archeological record. And, like other scholars, she basically says "Yes, there are a lot of stone altars, and stone and metal statuary of an apparently sacred kind, and a lot of grave goods that we can look at.
But we're only making guesses unless we can compare the material to other evidence, including a written record if possible.

There's no doubt that either the Druids actually existed as part of the learned class of Celtic society, or hundreds of writers lied about the whole thing and invented tons of stuff over a period of several centuries. But a lot of the source material was written by people who weren't actually Celts. In order to get a flavour of how the Pagan Celts thought and how they saw their world, I suggest that people browse through the Celtic section of this site.

www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm.

Even though it seems that the ancient legends were first put into writing after the coming of christianity, it's clear that a lot of very old material was recorded in tales like The Cattle Raid of Cooley and the Mabinogian.

[Stang]

Existance of druids is not being questioned.

The question is--what kind of things might be considered archaeological evidence of druids?

Golden sickles? Bunches of sticks enscribed wth ogham? Textiles with a particular number of colors? A bull hide? The use of woad in Britain predates the Celts, by the way, so its presence isn't automatically even a celtic burial. The original poster made it clear the point was for discussion and speculation, not proof. What kinds of things, even with the scant concrete knowledge we have, MIGHT be considered druidic items?

Actually given the path of travel and settlement Germanic and Norse similiarities might be more reasonable.

Maggie

Actually, KellyP mentioned reading a text that talked about the lack of archeological evidence for Druidry, presumably in a manner that was intended to call into question the existence of Druids, so she had her doubts about what that book said. At least, that's how I read it. If KellyP meant something else, I misinterpreted her comment. But we seem to all agree that the Druids actually existed, they did play an important role in Celtic society, the biggest question about them is what sort of secret information and ritual practices they had, and that it's therefore difficult to know what we should be looking for in terms of Celtic grave goods, etc., that would allow us to say something like "this was the grave of an Arch-Druid".

I agree with what you said about the close cultural connections between the Celts, Germans and Norse. H.R. Ellis Davidson has written some good stuff on that subject.

[Maggie]

Actually, KellyP mentioned reading a text that talked about the lack of archeological evidence for Druidry, presumably in a manner that was intended to call into question the existence of Druids, so she had her doubts about what that book said. At least, that's how I read it. If KellyP meant something else, I misinterpreted her comment. But we seem to all agree that the Druids actually existed, they did play an important role in Celtic society, the biggest question about them is what sort of secret information and ritual practices they had, and that it's therefore difficult to know what we should be looking for in terms of Celtic grave goods, etc., that would allow us to say something like "this was the grave of an Arch-Druid".

I agree with what you said about the close cultural connections between the Celts, Germans and Norse. H.R. Ellis Davidson has written some good stuff on that subject.


And that's the point of speculation. I haven't read any pertinant archaeology about this in some time, so I AM speculating.

What burials in the pertinant areas have been unearthed? What areas actually would be pertinant? Do we know much about possible druid classes/status outside of Ireland? Wales? Scotland? Elsewhere?

Would it be reasonable to assume a high status burial for a high level druid? Or was the situation more along the lines of English kings and Church primates?

What tools DO we know druids used? Not all their rituals were secret, they are supposed to have organized and led public rituals also. Ritual knives? Ornamental swords? Fancy chalices?

Actually--has anyone read more recent archaeology work? What burials have been found and where, with what goods? Are there reports of burials with goods that are open to interpretation?


Maggie


Ps KellyP is male

[_Banbha_]

Wouldnt Stonehenge and other stonce circles that mark the solstices be physical archaelogical proof? I dont know much on this subject so this is just me speculating.....

The 'Celtic' culture did not arrive early enough to be connected to the stone circles and other neolithic monuments. Carbon dating of organic materials has confirmed they were thousands of years older.

In Ireland there are examples of passage monuments like Knowth being used by later as an Iron Age Celts as a burial site with grave goods. While this is interesting, There is no indication they were being used in the same context they were orginally intended for by the neolithic builders.


ETA: Sorry Faol-chù answered this beforehand. I wrote my post, was distracted by something shiny outside hours ago, and just came back in. :)

[Faol-chù]

And that's the point of speculation. I haven't read any pertinant archaeology about this in some time, so I AM speculating.

What burials in the pertinant areas have been unearthed?

I have very little in the way of archaeology books at my immediate disposal to which I can refer and get the exact book or page number to reference (I have read a lot of books, and sometimes I forget what I read where, exactly); I also don't have the exact location or other detailed information. I do, however, know that (among other things) there was one burial unearthed in the former 'Gaul' of a female who was given a prestigious burial with a large number of grave goods which would indicate a particularly high status. Now whether or not this woman was a 'druid' is up for speculation. Personally, I would assume her to most definitely be from a druidic 'class'--though not necessarily a "priestess" (though perhaps so). Again, the problem is a lack of written language so that we can know more about her. We are left with speculation, based on what has been recorded in writing by other cultures at the time, and about what has been passed down to us in other Celtic languages.

One other thing that I can offer off the top of my head is 'Lindow Man', which MAY be direct evidence of a 'druidic' ritual....Though the theory certainly has its opponents.
Again, the problem of "proving" this rests mainly with what is known of Celtic cultures, mostly as passed down in the language and lore....and, to some degree, it becomes necessary to consider, as well, what is recorded by Classical sources.

Then there are multiple springs and other shrines that are associated with rituals to Lugus, and the occasional other god or goddess.

There are definitely more things that people LIKE to associated with the druids for one reason or another...I just can't think of them at the moment.

I would agree that Miranda Green would be one good place to look for more info, particularly on Gaul.


What areas actually would be pertinant?

As far as 'druids' are concerned, probably mostly Gaul, Ireland, and the island of Britain. Though Celts existed in other areas, the evidence for "druids" in those areas seems to be less certain or consistent than in Britain, Ireland, and Gaul.

Do we know much about possible druid classes/status outside of Ireland? Wales? Scotland? Elsewhere?

That depends on what you mean about "what we know"...is there archaeological evidence of Celtic cuture, and apparently elevated status of some members of society? Yes.
What the evidence means, exactly, is up to interpretation, and such specullation gets wilder if one ignores linguistic evidence and patterns evident from Irish and Welsh culture.

Would it be reasonable to assume a high status burial for a high level druid?

I would say so, yes.


Or was the situation more along the lines of English kings and Church primates?

What, specifically, are you referring to?
It seems to me that English kings and Church primates usually received high status burials.


What tools DO we know druids used?

If you don't take into evidence recorded by other cultures...
We KNOW nothing about what they did in their rituals, other than a very large focus on song and particular stories. (And if you don't take into account the linguistic record, then that is not clear, either.)

Not all their rituals were secret, they are supposed to have organized and led public rituals also.

People from the Druid 'class' would have most definitely organized and led public rituals...thought they were not necessarily all "religious" rituals. They would have, though, had a "religious" element.

Ritual knives? Ornamental swords? Fancy chalices?

No archaeological evidence for any of these.

Actually--has anyone read more recent archaeology work? What burials have been found and where, with what goods? Are there reports of burials with goods that are open to interpretation?

I've read lots of more recent archaeology...but have since decided that the answers to my questions would be a lot more clear if I knew some about the language...Hence why I took up Scottish Gaelic.

Le meas,

[LadyDracona1984]

a very wise professor of mine once quoted a wise professor of his in saying, you can't ask rocks to answer questions they don't know. a potter shard can't tell you who made it just like grave goods can't necessarily tell you everything about the person buried there. unfortunately it's just the way it is.

historian wise everything we have that references druids is tainted by christianity (just as a lot of our early stuff on the celts is as well) because there were no holy texts in druidism therefore there was no reason to write it down... kind of weird i know but if there is no holy text many times cultures don't develop a system of writing.

[KellyP]

Actually, KellyP mentioned reading a text that talked about the lack of archeological evidence for Druidry, presumably in a manner that was intended to call into question the existence of Druids, so she had her doubts about what that book said. At least, that's how I read it. If KellyP meant something else, I misinterpreted her comment.

Just to clear up a few points.

Yes, I did mention a statement made by Peter Wells in his excellent text The Barbarians Speak noting that no archaeological evidence has been found supporting the existence of Druids in ancient Celtic culture. However, Mr. Wells does NOT make that statement in a way of claiming that Druids doidnot exist. Instead he is making the point of what types of information may be gathered from our study of ancient materials. In fact, Mr. Wells does a nice job of detailing quite a few gravesites and oppida from the Gallic and Germanic frontiers of Imperial Rome.

KellyP is actually a He, is quite convinced regarding the existence of paleo-Druids (as our friend Issac would label them) and intended this thread as an exercise in speculation regarding what types of objects one might find in an archaeological dig and accept as evidence of Druids.

We have stories of the Druids wearing cloaks that bore feathers or speckled colors. We believe Druids were responsible for sacrifice, law, and history from different writings. I am not sure of the relationship between Ogham and Druids since anyone could have learned the writing and we know that many learned people among the Gauls spoke Greek.

Also, we tend to focus on the regions of Gaul and points west, but one must consider that the Galatians may have also had Druids.

Clearly, it would all be easier if they had just issued tiny lead identification cards to each Druid that passed the acceptance exam!

[Stang]

Okay, Kelly. My apologies for misunderstanding what you were saying. And for making the wrong assumption about your gender. Here in Canada, Kelly is usually a woman's name.

[Maggie]

I have very little in the way of archaeology books at my immediate disposal to which I can refer and get the exact book or page number to reference (I have read a lot of books, and sometimes I forget what I read where, exactly); I also don't have the exact location or other detailed information. I do, however, know that (among other things) there was one burial unearthed in the former 'Gaul' of a female who was given a prestigious burial with a large number of grave goods which would indicate a particularly high status. Now whether or not this woman was a 'druid' is up for speculation. Personally, I would assume her to most definitely be from a druidic 'class'--though not necessarily a "priestess" (though perhaps so). Again, the problem is a lack of written language so that we can know more about her. We are left with speculation, based on what has been recorded in writing by other cultures at the time, and about what has been passed down to us in other Celtic languages.

WARNING--I prefer celtic paganism, but not druidry any longer. I am asking questions NOT to pick at anyone but simply because I am curious about the basis for contemporary beliefs about druids.

A high status woman though, could be high status simply because she belongs to an aristocratic family. IF I remember correctly (and there is no guarantee that I am) this particular woman could also have been a warrior, I think she was found with weapons.

And no one knows how druids were selected. Is there actually some sort of druidic "class" perpetuated by families as in a specific group of people such as warriors, or aristocrats or craftsmen?



There are other cases of bog burials too that tend to support the idea of a ritual act. There isn't any way to prove it, only to make reasonable guesses based on a preponderance of supporting finds.

[quote]Then there are multiple springs and other shrines that are associated with rituals to Lugus, and the occasional other god or goddess.

Yep. I have personal experience with the ones devoted to Scathach on Skye. That gives evidence for cultural practices, not the existance of druids, though.

There are definitely more things that people LIKE to associated with the druids for one reason or another...I just can't think of them at the moment.

That's the kind of thing that I'm curious about, actually. "Intelligensia" is a term often applied--some people I've come across make them sound as if they're the scientists of the day. Golden sickles, white robes, solitude, respect for nature--and that in the contemporary sense. Stonehenge and its atronomical alignments are often waved around but Stonehenge is not celtic. There are other stone circles in contintental Europe and the British Isles but I'm not sure that any of them date to the celtic cultures.

I would agree that Miranda Green would be one good place to look for more info, particularly on Gaul.

Ann Ross is good too, and Ian McKillip for quick reference.


As far as 'druids' are concerned, probably mostly Gaul, Ireland, and the island of Britain. Though Celts existed in other areas, the evidence for "druids" in those areas seems to be less certain or consistent than in Britain, Ireland, and Gaul.

This is another point I have become curious about. There is evidence in classical literature sources for those in Gaul, yes? And certainly literature sources for their existance in Ireland. "Everyone knows" that the celtic nation isn't--in the sense that celtic is simply an umbrella term for a loosely connected group of people. And yet it is conventional wisdom that druids existed in all celtic societies and all had the same kind of attributes.



That depends on what you mean about "what we know"...is there archaeological evidence of Celtic cuture, and apparently elevated status of some members of society? Yes.
What the evidence means, exactly, is up to interpretation, and such specullation gets wilder if one ignores linguistic evidence and patterns evident from Irish and Welsh culture.

Yep. Beginnings of what we call celtic culture can be traced back to La Tene and more specifically Hallstat. Linguistics is indeed part of the puzzle, as is pottery, textiles, place names, etc. Thing is, Irish and Welsh culture is, well Irish and Welsh culture. That doesn't mean that it can be applied to say, Galacia or northern British Isles.


What, specifically, are you referring to?
It seems to me that English kings and Church primates usually received high status burials.

I am curious about what supports the assumption that the Arch Druid of Ireland held equal or greater power than the King--or are we reading stories of power struggles after the fact such as occured between one of the Henrys and Thomas a Becket. And, can that reasonable be applied to other areas and other times as a blanket assumption? Were druids political advisors or actually the power behind the throne (or right out in front)?


If you don't take into evidence recorded by other cultures...
We KNOW nothing about what they did in their rituals, other than a very large focus on song and particular stories. (And if you don't take into account the linguistic record, then that is not clear, either.)

Well, what evidence from other cultures is there? It is certainly reasonable to look at that, given the long trek from Austria to Ireland there is no way they would NOT have been influenced or left bits and pieces behind in other cultures.



People from the Druid 'class' would have most definitely organized and led public rituals...thought they were not necessarily all "religious" rituals. They would have, though, had a "religious" element.

Are there any literary sources? I do know that while Stonehenge is not celtic, later peoples did take it over and reuse it, there have been burials of both animals and people found there.



I've read lots of more recent archaeology...but have since decided that the answers to my questions would be a lot more clear if I knew some about the language...Hence why I took up Scottish Gaelic.

Le meas,


What questions do you have that would be answered by language study? Particularly since contemporary Scottish Gaelic is not what the ancient celts would have been speaking. And in any case, Scots are relative latcomers to the scene. Spiritually it makes sense for some. In my case I figure since Scathath decided to take a hand even though I know no Gaelic at all it doesn't seem to be important to Her. Then again, I tend to separate academic and spiritual when discussing either.

Maggie

[Maggie]

a very wise professor of mine once quoted a wise professor of his in saying, you can't ask rocks to answer questions they don't know. a potter shard can't tell you who made it just like grave goods can't necessarily tell you everything about the person buried there. unfortunately it's just the way it is.[quote]

Actually, a shard can indeed tell one who made it, in a cultural sense. Pottery is usually identifiable by shape, method of manufacture, design, and time period. Grave goods can tell one certain things about each person in a limited sense. They may not tell you the individual liked blue or hated green but they can usually say if the person was rich or poor, when they lived, sometimes how they died, if they were in a particular class.....

[quote]historian wise everything we have that references druids is tainted by christianity (just as a lot of our early stuff on the celts is as well) because there were no holy texts in druidism therefore there was no reason to write it down... kind of weird i know but if there is no holy text many times cultures don't develop a system of writing.


Are our sources also "tainted" by classical Roman conquerors?


Maggie

[Faol-chù]

WARNING--I prefer celtic paganism, but not druidry any longer. I am asking questions NOT to pick at anyone but simply because I am curious about the basis for contemporary beliefs about druids.

Just so you know where I am coming from, I am more of a 'traditionalist' who does not subscribe to the idea that a 'druid' caste or class is necessary, or even desirable. I have been, though, and still am, interested in archaeological finds dealing with those people. I just don't have as much time to persue such, because my time is taken up by, among other things, learning the language.

A high status woman though, could be high status simply because she belongs to an aristocratic family. IF I remember correctly (and there is no guarantee that I am) this particular woman could also have been a warrior, I think she was found with weapons.

I truly cannot remember if she was found with weapons. But whether or not that was the case, such inclusion of weapons does not necessarily equal "warrior". In recorded ancient Irish law, it was clear that women were expected to know how to fight and defend themselves. It could also be that the metal, itself, out of which such weapons were made, was primarily why such things were included. (Folklore makes clear the auspiciousness of metal.)


And no one knows how druids were selected. Is there actually some sort of druidic "class" perpetuated by families as in a specific group of people such as warriors, or aristocrats or craftsmen?

Good questions. I have some hints at answers from my experience with the lore...but nothing definite.


That's the kind of thing that I'm curious about, actually. "Intelligensia" is a term often applied--some people I've come across make them sound as if they're the scientists of the day.

Scientists, as well as legal specialists, historians, etc. Irish Brehons (lawyers) are linked with druids.


Stonehenge and its atronomical alignments are often waved around but Stonehenge is not celtic. There are other stone circles in contintental Europe and the British Isles but I'm not sure that any of them date to the celtic cultures.

No...they do not.



This is another point I have become curious about. There is evidence in classical literature sources for those in Gaul, yes? And certainly literature sources for their existance in Ireland. "Everyone knows" that the celtic nation isn't--in the sense that celtic is simply an umbrella term for a loosely connected group of people. And yet it is conventional wisdom that druids existed in all celtic societies and all had the same kind of attributes.

My experience with Celtic studies, language and lore suggests that, among other things, the different types of folks from the 'druid' class, including Bards, Ovates, Druids, Filidh, and Ollamhan also functioned as sort of a 'government'.

For example: The higher ranks of druids (at least some of them, with a 'law' specialty) would be more like the judges and political office-holders of modern day. The 'bardic' class dealing with that would have operated more as 'PR' and/or our "Representatives'' in modern society.


I am curious about what supports the assumption that the Arch Druid of Ireland held equal or greater power than the King--or are we reading stories of power struggles after the fact such as occured between one of the Henrys and Thomas a Becket. And, can that reasonable be applied to other areas and other times as a blanket assumption? Were druids political advisors or actually the power behind the throne (or right out in front)?

In my mind, this begs the question..."Is the President of higher status than a judge?"


Well, what evidence from other cultures is there?

A multitude of similarities of patterns between the Celts and Germanic tribes, as well as between the Celts and some of the older Hindu.



Are there any literary sources?

I do know that in several places in the Irish lore, even in Christian times, the 'sacredness' of such stories was evident. Also, it is obvious from studying even modern Gaelic culture, the importance of story and song in tradition, and the weight that such stories are given.


What questions do you have that would be answered by language study? Particularly since contemporary Scottish Gaelic is not what the ancient celts would have been speaking.

The biggest questions deal with THOUGHT PATTERNS. This is still evident, even though the language has changed.
Interestingly, as well, Irish has not changed as much as English has in a much shorter time.

And in any case, Scots are relative latcomers to the scene.

Just so you know, "Scots" means, in Latin "Irish". Some Irish migrated to what is now "Scotland", and eventually the area was ruled by Irish-language speakers. (There are references in English manuscripts dating to the early 1000's that refer to the Scots as 'speaking an Irish language'.) Also, Scotland and Ireland shared an oral tradition, their bards often being trained at the same schools. What we have with the Scottish Gaels as related to the Irish is mostly a difference in dialect. The thought patterns are as old as Irish Gaelic. The lore is extremely similar, as well.

Also, it may be of interest to you that, while, in English, Christianity and "Christian" ideals are central to the language and ideaology, it is much more "periferal" in Gaelic language and ideaology.

Le meas,

[Seren_]

A high status woman though, could be high status simply because she belongs to an aristocratic family. IF I remember correctly (and there is no guarantee that I am) this particular woman could also have been a warrior, I think she was found with weapons.

I believe you're talking about the "princely grave" burial at Vix:

http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/femdruids/Vix.html

[Stang]

I think my main concern about this thread is whether the question that the author posed about whether there's any archeological evidence for the existence of Druids is a reasonable one.

There's tons of written evidence for the existence of an educated class of people among the Celts who the Greeks and Romans sometimes referred to collectively as Druids, although they generally acknowledged that the educated class among the Celts fulfilled many different functions and had many different titles, but were divided into three main groups, the Bards, Ovates and Druids. And Celtic literature from Wales and Ireland that was written down at a later period, but which seems in some cases to have originally been composed in the pre-christian period, tells us the same thing. There's no reason to suppose that so many people would invent the concept of Druidry and keep up the charade in so many different places over so many different centuries. And while the Druids and Ovates gradually disappeared from Celtic society as a result of pressure from the christian church, the historical record indicates that Bards existed as an organized class in Ireland until the 18th century.

And there's nothing in the archeological record that contradicts any of this. There's archeological evidence for the existance of what seem to have been nemetons, as described by Greek and Roman writers, and these apparent nemetons are located in the right time and place to have been Druidic ritual sites. And there's archeological evidence for a gradual change to the use of stone temples by the Druids for some of their activities as a result of Greek and Roman influence. And these temples are found in just the right time and place to match what the Greeks and Romans had to say about changes in how the Druids functioned once they came under Greek or Roman influence. So, to that extent, there is archeological evidence to support the written record, but such archeological evidence can only provide so much information, because of its nature. Ancient writers all agree that Druids didn't issue bronze certificates to grraduate Druids, so it would be foolish to complain about not finding anything like that. Why ask the archeological record to provide more than it can reasonably be expected to provide, especially when that information is available in the written record?

One could question whether there's any archeological evidence that there really was an educated class in other societies, such as ancient Egypt. One could argue, for example, that despite all the written evidence fpr the existence of priests and priestesses in Egyptian society, it was actually some other group, such as a warrior class, that built the temples, pyramids and hidden burial vaults that still dot the Egyptian landscape. And the only reason that we have more archeological evidence for the existence of an Egyptian priesthood is because the Egyptians were much given to carving written information into stone, whereas the Druids were famous for transmitting all their important information orally. So when we find an intact burial site with rich grave goods in Egypt, and the person was a priest or priestess, rather than a warrior or a merchant, there's archeological evidence of what role that person played in Egyptian society simply because the information was carved onto the walls of the tomb. But ancient writers all agree that Druids didn't do it that way.

The fact that the Druids did things differently doesn't mean that we should question whether they exist. And the apparent lack of information about how Druids were buried (or whether they were cremated instead, or whatever) makes it difficult to know how to interpret burial sites. Some of them may not appear to us to indicate that the person was a Druid only because we don't know what to look for.

[Seren_]

I don't think the purpose of this thread was to question whether the druids existed because of the difficulties archaeology poses to the subject. I interpreted it as an opener for discussion on the matter - that archaeology is fairly limited on what it can contribute to the subject, and what the implications of that suggest, for example. Not that the druids didn't exist, but what can we really confidently say about them from an archaeological perspective? What sort of things could archaeology reveal if there was evidence? Is there anything in the evidence we already have that might have been overlooked or underestimated in importance?

The fact remains that with the evidence to hand, it's impossible to definitively say that yes, here's archaeological evidence of druids - as people. We may know of nemetons and ritual places that they are likely to have been at, but there is nothing to definitively, physically pin down an actual druid. Even the term 'princely grave' betrays the bias that archaeologists tend to have towards these types of burials - that they're high status but not evidence of a religious class. It's open to interpretation, of course, and not everyone agrees they're necessarily 'princely', but such bias against seeing anything priestly in the archaeology is important, just as it's important to note that some authors/archaeologists are as keen to see it where it doesn't exist (Anne Ross claiming Lindow Man was killed at Beltane as a ritual sacrifice by druids for example - no evidence whatsoever, but a good evocative image that sells books).

The fact also remains that of the literary sources we have, none of them are written by contemporary druids themselves (the Coligny Calendar may be an exception, but we can't prove that either) - they're all outside sources, and all of them therefore suffer from problemmatical biases, whether it's Caesar's political motivations in his portrayal of the druids, the habit of Classical authors to often 'toe the line' and basically regurgitate what other respected authors have previously written in some cases, or Christian biases against a pagan priesthood...whatever. Without sources from druids themselves (which would have their own biases, of course), we can't find a middle ground.

Plus, let's not forget the sources we do have, have been written across a broad span of time but tend to be used to view the druids as an unchanging, homogenous entity. So how do we know that what may have been true at the time one author wrote something, but is contradicted by a later author who could be writing about legitimate practise for that time period or area, but not earlier or elsewhere?

Archaeology could be a potential help here. But how can archaeology prove a class of people that didn't definitively write the equivalent of "Druids woz ere" when they buried their dead etc...Is the lack of any apparent definition significant? Were they just like other people, and are we being blindsided by the literary idea of a people running around in white robes with golden sickles hanging at their sides?

Debates often rage on what can and can't be taken as reliable as far as these literary sources provide us with information. If archaeology could provide physical evidence of some of the things mentioned - such as the use of golden sickles to cut mistletoe etc, then we can be a lot more confident about what we can say is right or wrong...It could give us an invaluable picture on the lives of druids that the literary sources don't provide much information on - how they lived, where they lived, what implications that would have had on their training and learning...Anyone wanting to be a druid, especially in a reconstructionist sense would find such evidence extremely important, especially if it can corroborate with the literature. It would provide a massive impetus on the development of modern druidry as a whole.

Without the archaeology we are missing a large portion of the picture. This is not to say that it should be interpreted as meaning we should be saying they didn't exist, or are unlikely to have existed. Simply that there's a limit to what the archaeology can say. This is a very significant shortcoming to anyone interested in the subject.

[Faol-chù]

I don't think the purpose of this thread was to question whether the druids existed because of the difficulties archaeology poses to the subject. I interpreted it as an opener for discussion on the matter - that archaeology is fairly limited on what it can contribute to the subject, and what the implications of that suggest, for example. Not that the druids didn't exist, but what can we really confidently say about them from an archaeological perspective? What sort of things could archaeology reveal if there was evidence? Is there anything in the evidence we already have that might have been overlooked or underestimated in importance?

I just want to say that this is how I took this thread, as well, particularly after it was clarified after my first post.

That said, I'd like to address a couple of things you mentioned...

Even the term 'princely grave' betrays the bias that archaeologists tend to have towards these types of burials - that they're high status but not evidence of a religious class. It's open to interpretation, of course, and not everyone agrees they're necessarily 'princely', but such bias against seeing anything priestly in the archaeology is important, just as it's important to note that some authors/archaeologists are as keen to see it where it doesn't exist (Anne Ross claiming Lindow Man was killed at Beltane as a ritual sacrifice by druids for example - no evidence whatsoever, but a good evocative image that sells books).

I feel the need to note here, regarding seeing "priestly" things in the archaeology...

I think it needs to be said that while the druids *may* have functioned in a "priestly" capacity, it was apparently not the only function of members of the druid class. I really dislike the fact that people hear the word "druid" and automatically think in terms of "priest".

Also, regarding Anne Ross and Lindow Man...I feel the need to point out that she was a native Scots Gaelic speaker who was well acquainted with the oral tradition, and I feel certain that those experiences are, at least partly, what led her to stick the stuff out there that she did. Even knowing the comparatively little bit I know about the oral tradition, I am inclined to agree with her that the evidence made available by this find certainly seem to bring a lot of elements of the oral tradition together. There is a big "aha!" that gets experienced when things in oral tradition seem to find archaeological backing.

The fact also remains that of the literary sources we have, none of them are written by contemporary druids themselves (the Coligny Calendar may be an exception, but we can't prove that either) -

Actually, it is my understanding that it is likely that the Coligny Calendar WAS NOT written by actual druids, because it was apparently written post-Roman conquest--after the druids had apparently been run out of Gaul (or killed) by Julius Caesar.


they're all outside sources, and all of them therefore suffer from problemmatical biases, whether it's Caesar's political motivations in his portrayal of the druids, the habit of Classical authors to often 'toe the line' and basically regurgitate what other respected authors have previously written in some cases, or Christian biases against a pagan priesthood...whatever. Without sources from druids themselves (which would have their own biases, of course), we can't find a middle ground.


Unless, of course, one accepts the authority of extant oral tradition (at least in some cases).


Le meas,

[Seren_]

I feel the need to note here, regarding seeing "priestly" things in the archaeology...

I think it needs to be said that while the druids *may* have functioned in a "priestly" capacity, it was apparently not the only function of members of the druid class. I really dislike the fact that people hear the word "druid" and automatically think in terms of "priest".

True, very true and perhaps my wording was due to my own biases in how I perceive druids to be in a general sense ;) But mainly I was writing with the nemetons in mind, hence the choice of wording in that context.

Also, regarding Anne Ross and Lindow Man...I feel the need to point out that she was a native Scots Gaelic speaker who was well acquainted with the oral tradition, and I feel certain that those experiences are, at least partly, what led her to stick the stuff out there that she did. Even knowing the comparatively little bit I know about the oral tradition, I am inclined to agree with her that the evidence made available by this find certainly seem to bring a lot of elements of the oral tradition together. There is a big "aha!" that gets experienced when things in oral tradition seem to find archaeological backing.

But Lindow Man was found in Cheshire, not Scotland, so it's questionable how far one can apply such oral tradition to what would have taken place in a Brythonic area. Granted they're not that different from each other, but local context is important.

The main problem I have with such assertions is that there's no evidence in the archaeology to back up such claims - the contents of his stomach may give an indication as to the time of year he died, but hardly the specific day for example, nor who was responsible for killing him (and the how isn't cut and dried either). The significance of the mistletoe found in his stomach is still being quibbled over as well.

In presenting an archaeological find there is undoubtedly a lot of room for speculation and interpretation, but they should be clearly presented as such, and not presented as fact or broadly sweeping statements. As an archaeologist and a scientist, such claims are considered bad practice and extremely misleading these days, although in Dr Ross' day such an approach was common. It just doesn't stand up under a modern academic approach.

Actually, it is my understanding that it is likely that the Coligny Calendar WAS NOT written by actual druids, because it was apparently written post-Roman conquest--after the druids had apparently been run out of Gaul (or killed) by Julius Caesar.

Well I did say may ;) As far as I'm aware the date has yet to be agreed on, though most people err on the side of post-Roman rather than pre. But there is plenty of mention of druids post-Caesar in the Classical record (e.g. Strabo and Pliny), so I'm not sure that argument stands. IIRC the tablets were found in a temple to Apollo rather than a 'native' context, so yes it's looking unlikely. But some have interpreted it as a druidical calendar, an attempt to preserve their native calendar in a time when the Roman way is taking over etc. And wherever they were found doesn't necessarily mean that's where they were made...

Unless, of course, one accepts the authority of extant oral tradition (at least in some cases).

Absolutely.

[Maggie]

Yes, but a personal dagger is a bit different than a sword and shield, or even a broken knife included for that metal.



[quote]Good questions. I have some hints at answers from my experience with the lore...but nothing definite.

What kind of hints? I've never even heard there were "hints." :)


Scientists, as well as legal specialists, historians, etc. Irish Brehons (lawyers) are linked with druids.

Okay, personal bias warning here again. At this point in time the bit about the intelligentsia and scientists strikes me as unrealistic elitism. There were kings and warriors, druids--and the rest of the great unwashed hordes waiting for words of wisdom is the picture I get.

The women of Hallstat were weaving six color plaids in twill weave. Doubt they needed the as yet non-existant druids to figure it out. They worked on their science of weaving and dying as they went along--and passed on their knowledge without needing a druid to memorize it.

The Hallstat men were mining the salt--which formed the basis of the wealth for those tribes in the area. They had obviously figured out how to mine it and market it without druids.

The farmers, anyone keeping animals, already knew how to care for and use the animals they kept or the crops they grew and they learned the science of agriculture and animal husbandry without druids.


Now--in the course of daily life later druids (and their predecessors, whatever they were) the role of religious protection, charms, rituals, etc would be important. But that doesn't make the druids the scientists of the celtic peoples.


How do you see them functioning as scientists?


My experience with Celtic studies, language and lore suggests that, among other things, the different types of folks from the 'druid' class, including Bards, Ovates, Druids, Filidh, and Ollamhan also functioned as sort of a 'government'.

How so? In the stories I've read the king may not take the advice of a druid and disaster may follow. But the druid apparently could not compel the king to take his advice. I've come across a reference in other stuff I'm reading:

A particular Irish king, King Tigeramus, set down anti-sumptuary laws. The king was alllowed seven colors--and the druids only six. Not only did that leave the druids a lower caste but the king apparently had the authority to make it stick. The bards would sing--but they would often sing to the authority of a king. As is so often mentioned, one of the functions of some druids is history--of the king and his deeds.

A form of government it may be--but it shadowed the king and did not compete with his power.


In my mind, this begs the question..."Is the President of higher status than a judge?"

Not an apt comparison, that's why I used a medieval English king and primate. We have deliberately divided the power in our form of government in a way that does not allow it to be directly compared to the ancient celtic form with an absolute monarch and advisor.



I do know that in several places in the Irish lore, even in Christian times, the 'sacredness' of such stories was evident. Also, it is obvious from studying even modern Gaelic culture, the importance of story and song in tradition, and the weight that such stories are given.

That's true of many cultures in many times. There is an absolutely wonderful new translation of Beowulf out that makes the similarities between Norse and Celtic culture clear. The power of satire and glory is well known but that doesn't mean it needed a druid to be so.


The biggest questions deal with THOUGHT PATTERNS. This is still evident, even though the language has changed.
Interestingly, as well, Irish has not changed as much as English has in a much shorter time.

Might I suggest that the more rapid changes in English are due more intimate contacts with many, many cultures? There are over 100 languages spoken at home in my school district. Plus, English has a tendency to simply borrow the words instead of translating the object into the "home" language a la French or German. I don't know of any country other than Ireland that claims Irish Gaelic. India has made English the official language. I suspect the English there is changing also, much as English in America adjusted.



Just so you know, "Scots" means, in Latin "Irish". Some Irish migrated to what is now "Scotland", and eventually the area was ruled by Irish-language speakers. (There are references in English manuscripts dating to the early 1000's that refer to the Scots as 'speaking an Irish language'.) Also, Scotland and Ireland shared an oral tradition, their bards often being trained at the same schools. What we have with the Scottish Gaels as related to the Irish is mostly a difference in dialect. The thought patterns are as old as Irish Gaelic. The lore is extremely similar, as well.

Actually, Scot is supposed to have come from "Scotia", allegedly the Roman name for the area. I am aware that Kenneth MacAlpine is the first king of the Scots, in what....tenth century CE? And that the Irish settlers started the Gaelic bits. However, there were others already living there, and what became Scottish is an amalgm of several different cultures at a later period.

Also, it may be of interest to you that, while, in English, Christianity and "Christian" ideals are central to the language and ideaology, it is much more "periferal" in Gaelic language and ideaology.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you explain a but further? I don't see how Christianity is more central to English language thought patterns.


Maggie

[Maggie]

I believe you're talking about the "princely grave" burial at Vix:

http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/femdruids/Vix.html

:lol: No, that one isn't it. I think I'll have to bang my head a bit harder and see if the memory falls out. It was a passing reference I came across while the History Channel ran a program on Queen Bodieca.

I wonder about this one for more than one reason. They mention only personal adornments and household items, even the cart could be one she used in life. Even the large vessel could be used in a large high status household to mix wine and water for banquets, not ritual.

And, they mention that there are several other similar female burials in the area, rich enough to even surpass the war chiefs--but they don't mention equivalent male burials. Since both sexes are mentioned as being druids I would expect at least one male buriel to have a rich buriel that doesn't focus on weaponry since that was not a druid's function. I assume the "war chiefs" are identified as such because of the arms buried with them. In the goods listed there is nothing that cannot be accounted for by either personal adornment or household goods. A piece of jewelry with an unusual stone, a vessel that isn't common for eating or drinking--something that sings "One of these things is not like the others."


Maggie

[Faol-chù]

True, very true and perhaps my wording was due to my own biases in how I perceive druids to be in a general sense ;) But mainly I was writing with the nemetons in mind, hence the choice of wording in that context.

I knew what you were getting at...:) I just felt the need to stick it out there..:hahugh:


But Lindow Man was found in Cheshire, not Scotland, so it's questionable how far one can apply such oral tradition to what would have taken place in a Brythonic area. Granted they're not that different from each other, but local context is important.

Yes, context *is* important.

I'll just note, FWIW, that, while Scottish Gaelic tradition *is* ***very*** Gaelic, it has also absorbed quite a bit of the Brythonic reflexes that were there before the arrival of the Gaels.

Just so it does not go unsaid, there are specific recorded traditions from Scottish Gaelic tradition that deal with an apparent folk memory of sacrifice...And more than one of them suggested the auspiciousness of a burnt bannock...which was also apparently among the contents of Lindow Man's stomach.

Le meas,

[Hærfest Leah]

Great question and wonderful thread. I'd wondered this question before myself. Enjoying the read.

[Faol-chù]

Yes, but a personal dagger is a bit different than a sword and shield, or even a broken knife included for that metal.

Firstly, if it was broken, then it would be considered to be "dead". It (apparently) wasn't a sacrifice. Also, the Irish women apparently were not only expected to defend THEMSELVES. In the even of an attack on the land of their parents', married women were expected to leave their husband's home to come defend their parents' land. This strongly suggests that, not only would a woman know how to wield a dagger, she would also be expected to know how to wield a sword.


What kind of hints? I've never even heard there were "hints." :)

From the lore with which I am familiar, there was a strong tendancy for professions to run in family lines....though this has apparently not ALWAYS been the case, there have been exceptions.



Okay, personal bias warning here again. At this point in time the bit about the intelligentsia and scientists strikes me as unrealistic elitism. There were kings and warriors, druids--and the rest of the great unwashed hordes waiting for words of wisdom is the picture I get.

It seems to me more along the lines of "everybody had a job to do"...I get the sense that it was pretty much accepted that a person could not do *everything* and do it well...They were expected to 'specialize'...and as mentioned above, the lore suggests to me a strong tendancy for such things to run along family lines (though not every single time).


The women of Hallstat were weaving six color plaids in twill weave. Doubt they needed the as yet non-existant druids to figure it out. They worked on their science of weaving and dying as they went along--and passed on their knowledge without needing a druid to memorize it.


The Hallstat men were mining the salt--which formed the basis of the wealth for those tribes in the area. They had obviously figured out how to mine it and market it without druids.

The farmers, anyone keeping animals, already knew how to care for and use the animals they kept or the crops they grew and they learned the science of agriculture and animal husbandry without druids.


Now--in the course of daily life later druids (and their predecessors, whatever they were) the role of religious protection, charms, rituals, etc would be important. But that doesn't make the druids the scientists of the celtic peoples.

How do you conclude that the druids "didn't exist" at this early period?

As far as I am concerned, all of this simply backs up my suggestion that it was likely acknowledged that "everybody had a job to do"...and that each one was appreciated for their contribution. It is just that the druid class worked in a different realm...mostly dealing with speech and lore.

How do you see them functioning as scientists?

The way in which I, personally, see them as functioning as a type of "scientist" is the fact that they KEPT AND PASSED lore that explained how the universe operated.
That is the biggest function of science today, from my perspective.



How so? In the stories I've read the king may not take the advice of a druid and disaster may follow. But the druid apparently could not compel the king to take his advice. I've come across a reference in other stuff I'm reading:


For comparison purposes...Take as an example, the way the United States operated prior to the Civil War. Also, take as an example, the way the Native American "Federations" operated prior to being taken down by the US government.

Upper level druids sort of served as a 'mediating' body...Much like the larger group "governments". They could settle disagreements, negotiate treaties, etc., but they did not have the power to tell the heads of the smaller groups exactly what they should be doing. (Governors of states; chiefs of tribes, etc.)


A particular Irish king, King Tigeramus, set down anti-sumptuary laws. The king was alllowed seven colors--and the druids only six. Not only did that leave the druids a lower caste but the king apparently had the authority to make it stick. The bards would sing--but they would often sing to the authority of a king. As is so often mentioned, one of the functions of some druids is history--of the king and his deeds.

The bards, and the higher ranking druids also had the power to "satire" a king and make him a laughing stock to his people and others.



A form of government it may be--but it shadowed the king and did not compete with his power.

No..it wasn't direct competition, as they wielded different kinds of power.


Not an apt comparison, that's why I used a medieval English king and primate. We have deliberately divided the power in our form of government in a way that does not allow it to be directly compared to the ancient celtic form with an absolute monarch and advisor.

Just so you know, the Celts (at least the Gaels) apparently did not have an "absolute monarch". As a matter of fact, chiefs in Scotland were elected. Don't mistake a chief, or a Celtic "king" to be anything remotely LIKE an English king.



Might I suggest that the more rapid changes in English are due more intimate contacts with many, many cultures? There are over 100 languages spoken at home in my school district. Plus, English has a tendency to simply borrow the words instead of translating the object into the "home" language a la French or German. I don't know of any country other than Ireland that claims Irish Gaelic. India has made English the official language. I suspect the English there is changing also, much as English in America adjusted.

I don't deny that there are several reasons why English has changed as much as it has...starting with the fact that England, itself, has historically been an imperial nation. That fact alone, set it up to come into contact with many more cultures, far and wide. (A la Rome!)
The point is that Gaelic thought patterns have changed comparatively little over time. The strength of the oral tradition has seen to it.


Actually, Scot is supposed to have come from "Scotia", allegedly the Roman name for the area.

You may want to check out this article from Wikipedia that deals with the word "Scot":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata)

"The inhabitants of Dál Riata are often referred to as Scots, from the Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language) scotti, a word which came from the Low Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Latin) scottis, which came from the Greek language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) word σκότος meaning darkness [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata#_note-1), and later came to mean Gaelic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Irish_language)-speakers whether Scottish, Irish or otherwise.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata#_note-2)"



I am aware that Kenneth MacAlpine is the first king of the Scots, in what....tenth century CE? And that the Irish settlers started the Gaelic bits. However, there were others already living there, and what became Scottish is an amalgm of several different cultures at a later period.

It was called "Scotland" in Latin because it was dominated by Gaelic language-speakers.

This site here shows clearly (and it is backed up elsewhere) that the first king of the Scots was Fergus Mòr, who became king in 498 CE.

http://www.friesian.com/scotia.htm


I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you explain a but further? I don't see how Christianity is more central to English language thought patterns.

To see it clearly, you'd likely have to learn a bit about the language. I'll explain it as well as I can. The very language that we call "English" was borne out of the dark ages, and centered around Christianity as its rallying point. Christian concepts are truly the hinge-point of the language. Everything that is right or wrong is centered around Christian ideaology.

This is not true for Gaelic. Though Gaelic has certainly changed since the advent of Christianity, and has borrowed words and ideas, its core has remained the same. The borrowings of Christianity exist more on the 'outside' edges of the Gaelic worldview. There is lots more to draw from...and a lot of it is starkly NOT from a Christian perspective.

Le meas,

[Seren_]

:lol: No, that one isn't it.

Oh. Bugger! :lol: