pre-celtic (bronze age) britain...???

[StormVixen]

sooo... im so drawn to the bronze age ive decided to try and recreate the "religion" of the time... im not so convinced that modern celtic beliefes are true as alot of the stuff its based on is fiction (same reason im not a Christian) and the deity system is crazy... i have read a book called "Britain BC" which is an awesome archiological book and im going to do some more reserch of bronze age britain...

anyone know anything?

[Faol-chù]

Look for books by archaeologist Aubrey Burle, and archaeologist Ralph Merrifield.

Also, you may be interested in a book called The Age of Stonehenge, by author Colin Burgess. It's an old one, an not particularly oriented to 'religious aspects', but very good, still.

You are not going to find anything 'proveable' when it comes to bronze age religion, because there is absolutely NOTHING written. And whether or not something is 'religious' is going to be largely up to interpretation.
Also, bronze age culture and iron age (Celtic) culture differ greatly. Since bronze age culture obviously did not speak a ' Celtic' language, they can hardly be considered to be 'Celtic', although Celtic culture there was obviously at least partially built on that culture as it's foundation.

It is very obvious that Celtic culture was quite a bit different (perhaps DELIBERATELY so) from the culture that preceded it (them).

[Seren_]

The problem you're going to have - apart from the fact that there's no written record left by them to give you some more obvious clues - is that the archaeological evidence is so diverse across Britain, we can't be sure that there was any one religion being practised, or if there were more, how much they differed from neighbouring beliefs.

Think of how different the archaeology of Wiltshire (Stonehenge, Silbury Hill etc) is from the Orkneys and Shetland, or Argyll, for example. Can we assume the evidence from Stonehenge is relevant for the rest of the country...? And so on...That's what some archaeologists are wondering, anyway.

Having said that, there are some interesting tidbits kicking around. You might be interested in the following article, about possible evidence of mummification in Bronze Age Britain:

Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/excavations_techniques/mummies_cladhhallan_01.shtml)

It's basically about how two bodies may have been mummified by being left in a bog for a short while (after their innards were removed) in order to preserve them. In one case, it looks like the body was kept for up to 600 years before finally being buried, indicating possible ancestor worship. That's another problem - because the evidence is often so ambiguous, we can only guess at the reasoning and purpose behind the Bronze Age people's actions. One of the most obvious issues will be who the gods were/are...On the one hand that gives you a lot of leeway to go with your gut and apply your own UPG and create a path...On the other hand, you might end up feeling that it's as much a fiction as a lot of the Celtic stuff that's out there. I guess it depends on how important you feel a firm historical basis for your practises is.

Sorry if that sounds disparaging...there is information out there that can help you, but at the moment I can't think of any books that would be of help. Francis Pryor is probably the best known author on the subject, so you might try other books by him.

[StormVixen]

meh... i jus wanna live in the bronze age... ill figure something out...

[StormVixen]

im still going with trying to recreate bronze age style religion in my head, i know theres barely any evadence but... at the end of the day its what feels right to me...

[Toby Stimpson]

im still going with trying to recreate bronze age style religion in my head, i know theres barely any evadence but... at the end of the day its what feels right to me...

Is it though? I mean if theres barely any evidence, is it not a little disrespectful to put yourself out there to other people as a Bronze-Age reconstructionist?

Im curious, what kinds of things were you interested about the bronze age?

I'd recommend, if you can, getting a hold of the BBC reality show "Return to the Iron Age"...it shows a group of people living in a recreated Iron Age hill fort somewhere in Wales. Although it isn't bronze age, it does have a little information.

[ap Dafydd]

I remember coming across a reference in Miranda Green somewhere about the icons of the sunwheel and the waterfowl as being common in Bronze Age religion, may have been in "The Gods of the Celts"...

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[S_Wodening]

I think you are going to also have to look at Celtic religion and see what parts of it are possibly not Celtic. This can be done by comparing the Celtic religion of the isles to that of the Gauls on the continent, and to also mention the other Indo-European religons such as the Germanic, Roman, and Slavic. If you eliminate the ideas that these have in common, you may arrive at some legitimately pre-Celtic beliefs.

Swain

[Faol-chù]

I think you are going to also have to look at Celtic religion and see what parts of it are possibly not Celtic. This can be done by comparing the Celtic religion of the isles to that of the Gauls on the continent, and to also mention the other Indo-European religons such as the Germanic, Roman, and Slavic. If you eliminate the ideas that these have in common, you may arrive at some legitimately pre-Celtic beliefs.

Swain

I don't necessarily think that conclusions derived from such a method would be correct...
For the simple fact that the Germanic, Roman, and Slavic people were descended from some of the same GENETIC stock...also, the far-flung (possibly--not necessarily *definitely* non-Indo-European) cultures from which the Germanic, Romans, and Slavs were derived had some apparent similarities, as well.....

[S_Wodening]

I tihnk you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying eliminate the common IE elements from Celtic religion in the isles and one may arrive at the pre-Celtic British beliefs.

[Faol-chù]

I tihnk you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying eliminate the common IE elements from Celtic religion in the isles and one may arrive at the pre-Celtic British beliefs.


No..I'm not misunderstanding you at all...

I'm saying there were apparently some beliefs in common in the areas of the mentioned cultures BEFORE those cultures, per se, existed.

..So eliminating commonalities will not necessarily be helpful.

Also...In the British Isles and elsewhere, "pre-Celtic" does not necessarily mean "pre-Indo-European".

[StormVixen]

literally... dont worry about it... ive just realised that it doesnt matter what people think will be the best way to find out what bronze age people MAY have believed because i am researching it myself scientifically and spiritually (via meditation etc)

i dont see how calling myself a "Bronze Age Reconstructionist" (i wouldnt call myself anything though) would be disrespectful in any way, unless of course all religions based on fully/partly lost religions would be considered disrespectful... which they're not (usually).

i have always been interested in all aspects of the british bronze age so i think its the right path for me to take. recently i feel that being Celtic means very little to me apart from the fact that "Cernunnos" (my patron) is a Celtic god although i believe he existed before the Celts gave him his names.

[Seren_]

Do you have Hutton's Pagan Religions of the British Isles (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pagan-Religions-Ancient-British-Isles/dp/0631189467/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/202-1901420-1738206?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184177996&sr=8-3)? It's a little outdated but it should at least give you a good idea of other sources you could look up.

[StormVixen]

oooh no i dont ill have to take a look at that thanx x

[S_Wodening]

No..I'm not misunderstanding you at all...

I'm saying there were apparently some beliefs in common in the areas of the mentioned cultures BEFORE those cultures, per se, existed.

..So eliminating commonalities will not necessarily be helpful.

Also...In the British Isles and elsewhere, "pre-Celtic" does not necessarily mean "pre-Indo-European".


Well, you are not quite correct. Remember that the IE peoples were not just the peoples of Europe, but also those of India and Persia. They would not hold in common the religious elements derived from say, the megalith builders of the British Isles and Northern Europe. Therefore, those beliefs held in common in that part of Europe would not be elimanated as a "commonality." That is if a belief is held in common by say the Germanic, Roman, and Celtic peoples, but not the Aryans of India, it could be a pre-IE belief.

As to pre-Celtic not necessarily meaning pre-Indo-European, of course it does not. There are some that think the Picts were a IE people for example.

[Faol-chù]

Well, you are not quite correct. Remember that the IE peoples were not just the peoples of Europe, but also those of India and Persia. They would not hold in common the religious elements derived from say, the megalith builders of the British Isles and Northern Europe.

The thing is...Just because something appears in a Hindu Indo-European culture does not mean that it will also appear in a Northern European Indo-European culture, and vice-versa, or that it would take the same form, if it *did*. "Form" is, indeed a difficult thing to nail down....because something can take one form in one place and another in another, and not necessarily be recognized as being 'the same thing'.


As to pre-Celtic not necessarily meaning pre-Indo-European, of course it does not. There are some that think the Picts were a IE people for example.

Actually, the Picts are not necessarily what I'm talking about...although most Celtic reconstructionists are of the mind that the Picts' language WAS Celtic...not necessarily in origin, but due to intense contact WITH the Celts who surrounded them.

The jury is still out on whether the megalith builders of Europe spoke an Indo-European language. We just don't know. It could be that there were several waves.

[Tullip Troll]

yeah ! Picts,

[S_Wodening]

Well, we will have to disagree on the comparison method. I still feel if one compares the earliest myths such as in the Rig Veda to the Eddas and Celtic beliefs one would be able to eliminate enough of the IE beliefs to potentially arrive at something resembling pre-IE beliefs.

As to there being waves of IE peoples, that is a possibility. However, linguistics does not reflect it, nor do I understand does archeology. The Battle Axe people are thought to be the first IE invaders, and do not appear in the British Isles. Not to mention that the IE parts of the Celtic and Germanic languages and their dialects is pretty uniform showing little to no borrowing from an earlier IE people. What they do show is that Celtic has a Basque related substrate in it, while the Germanic languages have a sizable non-IE substrate. These point to contact with pre-IE peoples at some point. Now there is a theory that Germanic had contact with a satem language as it has some peculiarities that can only be explained away if one accepts that. But Celtic, does not show that.

[Torulf]

Just remember that archaeologists is somewhat similar to storytellers, no disrespect to them whatsoever. They find an object and then it's up to them to find out its purpose or such. When finding several items they think up a possible scenario and present this. What I say is that it is not an absolute truth, one should also consider other options if one can get other results out of the items.

As I said, it may be true, but at the same time it may not.

The best of wishes to you =)

[erika]

Just remember that archaeologists is somewhat similar to storytellers, no disrespect to them whatsoever. They find an object and then it's up to them to find out its purpose or such. When finding several items they think up a possible scenario and present this. What I say is that it is not an absolute truth, one should also consider other options if one can get other results out of the items.



Actually.. I'm a university student majoring in archaeology which is simply a subset of anthropology. We aren't storytellers. Archaeology is a very VERY exact science, when it comes to recovering sites/artifacts - at least the professionally trained ones are. There are still a lot of amatuer archaeologists out there, surprisingly, that are frowned upon because they do exactly what you just said, find and artifact and make up a story based on pure conjuncture that is not based on the science or due to poor excavation techniques. Once an artifact is excavated (or looted) from its original site without the careful, tedious techniques used by a trained archaeologist it completely loses its historical context.

What I'm trying to say is that archaeology is based on facts. Hypothesis are generally put out there after a lot of evidence has been found to support it and again - we don't claim these 'stories' to be fact. They are hypothesis that can be changed or evolve as new evidence comes to light. The point here is that we don't pick up an artifact look at it and then come up with some story to give it historical significance, it's all about the facts found through extremely knit-pickity and thorough excavations seen through a trained anthropological view.

Sorry :) it's just.. we are scientists.. not story tellers :) All about facts!

[odubhain]

What I'm trying to say is that archaeology is based on facts. Hypothesis are generally put out there after a lot of evidence has been found to support it and again - we don't claim these 'stories' to be fact. They are hypothesis that can be changed or evolve as new evidence comes to light. The point here is that we don't pick up an artifact look at it and then come up with some story to give it historical significance, it's all about the facts found through extremely knit-pickity and thorough excavations seen through a trained anthropological view.

Sorry :) it's just.. we are scientists.. not story tellers :) All about facts!
A good story teller and an archaeologist combined is the type of person needed to bring more peopl eto an understanding of the past and its meaning for the present. Please keep at your studies while not losing your sense of wonder and ability to share the story.

Facts are the place where the most professional of the Druids produced and preserved their stories. If they had possessed the tools and techniques of modern science, the world would be a better place. It is my great hope that science and philosophy can havea productive marriage in the modern world as it did during ancient times.

Searles O'Dubhain

[Babylon]

interesting. I have never even read anything about Bronze Age Britain before lol, and I just researched a little bit about the culture today for the first time. So what would these people be called or what would you call them, since they weren't Celts? I have researched Celtic deities in the past, but since the deities we have concepts of are Celtic, how would you go about a pre-Celtic pantheon with such sparse evidence?

It's possible some are of pre-Celtic origin, but how to know? I'm curious as to how one would go about this. If there is religious evidence of other old European pre-IE peoples, especially if they had contact with old Britain, I would compare those and see how it all fits. It will be fascinating to see some results that come about from your path, so please do share your findings!

[Babylon]

well here's an idea.

Perhaps the pre-Celtic deities were the demonized Formorians of the Irish myths, revered by the original inhabitants, but later ousted by the new Celtic gods and peoples that took over. Sure that's Irish but it could also coincide with British and Gaulish right? Some of the Irish deity names are also found in Brittain and Gaul, like Ogma/Ogmios. At least it's *something* that has to do with pre-Celtic deities.

[Faol-chù]

The majority of the genetic stock of what is currently referred to as "Celts" was the same as the people who preceded them. The change from whatever was before to "Celtic" was apparently more of a cultural (linguistic) shift than one of the actual INHABITANTS of the places.

The pre-Celtic inhabitants of these areas are often referred by archaeologists by the blanket term "pre-Celtic". When they start talking about the pre-Celtic people from the various areas, then they are usually called by the name of some of the archaeological finds in those areas. (I.E. "urnfield culture", "beaker people", etc.).

We have absolutely no idea what any of those people would have called themselves.

They were NOT, though, necessarily non IE. They theoretically could have spoken a much older IE language, but we have no way of knowing.

The idea that the older gods of the pre-Celtic peoples eventually came to be the Fomorii is not out of the realm of possibilities.
I have to say, though, that I, personally think that, while this may have been the case with SOME of the 'Fomorian' entities...I do not necessarily think that it's that cut and dry.

Le meas,

Faol-chù


interesting. I have never even read anything about Bronze Age Britain before lol, and I just researched a little bit about the culture today for the first time. So what would these people be called or what would you call them, since they weren't Celts? I have researched Celtic deities in the past, but since the deities we have concepts of are Celtic, how would you go about a pre-Celtic pantheon with such sparse evidence?

It's possible some are of pre-Celtic origin, but how to know? I'm curious as to how one would go about this. If there is religious evidence of other old European pre-IE peoples, especially if they had contact with old Britain, I would compare those and see how it all fits. It will be fascinating to see some results that come about from your path, so please do share your findings!

[Gwyddyon]

erika - VERY well said.:woot:A favorite professor of mine was once asked how, when looking at a lithic dispersal pattern, we might best arrive at an emic perspective (for the non-anthro people out there, "emic perspective" is a cultural anthropology term meaning looking at a culture from its own perspective). His reply? "We use data. Numbers. Without data, you're probably taking an emic perspective, which is the same as making s*** up. What's the point?"

I've been debating broaching this topic for a long time, but it's gotten too hard to keep it internalized. Are any of you familiar with the last ten or fifteen years of Iron Age studies in archaeology? It's been pretty well established that the "Celts" are a Victorian invention whose name was simply borrowed from Caesar's partially-ignorant accounts. In fact, most British archaeologists today refer to it as "the C word" and grimace a bit when it's mentioned.

[odubhain]

In fact, most British archaeologists today refer to it as "the C word" and grimace a bit when it's mentioned.

I'm surprised at their pain. Please give us the word they use to describe the culture and language of this group of people that does not cause facial contortions for them.

Searles O'Dubhain

[Gwyddyon]

I'm surprised at their pain. Please give us the word they use to describe the culture and language of this group of people that does not cause facial contortions for them.That's the issue, actually. Prior to the 18th century, there is no "Celtic culture", and that invention is largely only because at that point the Celtic language family was first delineated. If we're talking about Iron Age Northern Europe, the only time you should use the term "Celtic" is if you're talking about a relatively small set of tribes in what the Romans called Gaul, and even then it is likely that "Celtic" was the Roman term, and that the people it was used to refer to would hardly have recognized it. Archaeologically-speaking, there is certainly no reason to suspect that people in Galatia, Iberia, Gaul, Belgium, Ireland, or Britain saw themselves as related in any way at all beyond perhaps a scattered preference for certain artistic forms (which, it must be highlighted, are hardly universal and not spatially or temporally coherent in distribution). For that matter, almost nobody in Ireland or Scotland would even be familiar with the EXISTANCE of Belgium or Brittany. The best we can say is that neighbouring tribes in what is now England may have shared a language, that neighbouring tribes in what is now Switzerland may have enjoyed the same La Tene decoration, and that elites in what is now Brittany developed a fondness for it as well, probably as a means to highlight their status as elites.

This is not to say Irish, Scottish, and Galician people today are wrong if they refer to themselves as "Celtic". That is their cultural identity, and they are welcome to it. What is largely fantasy is the attribution of this modern term, born largely out of 19th century nationalism, to people living 3000 years ago.

[TomasFlannabhra]

That's the issue, actually. Prior to the 18th century, there is no "Celtic culture", and that invention is largely only because at that point the Celtic language family was first delineated. If we're talking about Iron Age Northern Europe, the only time you should use the term "Celtic" is if you're talking about a relatively small set of tribes in what the Romans called Gaul, and even then it is likely that "Celtic" was the Roman term, and that the people it was used to refer to would hardly have recognized it.
Well, there is that line from Caesar's BG that says something along the lines of "We call them Galli, they call themselves Celtae", but this may have only been applicable to those people in Southern Gaul.

For that matter, almost nobody in Ireland or Scotland would even be familiar with the EXISTANCE of Belgium or Brittany.
There's actually evidence that Bronze and Iron Age Ireland did trade with Britain, Gaul, Belgica, Germania, Celtic-Iberia, and possibly the Mediterranean. They were more than likely to be familiar with foreign states.

This is not to say Irish, Scottish, and Galician people today are wrong if they refer to themselves as "Celtic". That is their cultural identity, and they are welcome to it. What is largely fantasy is the attribution of this modern term, born largely out of 19th century nationalism, to people living 3000 years ago.
'Celtic' is more often than not used by anthropologists and archaeologists as a term to describe an Indo-European linguistic group, not a people or race. There is evidence of people speaking and using Celtic languages as far back as 2, 500 years.

[Gwyddyon]

here is that line from Caesar's BG that says something along the lines of "We call them Galli, they call themselves Celtae", but this may have only been applicable to those people in Southern Gaul.

Caesar also describes a species of German elk that does not have knees - he's best taken with a wagon of salt when he's not discussing Roman politics or military tactics.

There's actually evidence that Bronze and Iron Age Ireland did trade with Britain, Gaul, Belgica, Germania, Celtic-Iberia, and possibly the Mediterranean. They were more than likely to be familiar with foreign states.Yeah, there is. There are also moon rocks in the Smithsonian - doesn't mean I have on in my kitchen. I'm well aware of the trade connections - my undergraduate thesis dealt extensively with pre-historic and early historic trade in Northern Europe, and I'm about to start graduate work along the same lines. BUT, we have to remember that the archaeological record is not necessarily representative of the material record at the time. If we find a Belgian sword in Donegal, that means that at some point there was a connection between a Belgian and a guy from Donegal, or between a Belgian, a Scottish middleman, and a guy from Donegal. That doesn't mean everybody in Donegal has a connection in Belgium, or even that anybody other than that guy does. We've taken far too much for granted based on too few finds in the past.

'Celtic' is more often than not used by anthropologists and archaeologists as a term to describe an Indo-European linguistic group, not a people or race. There is evidence of people speaking and using Celtic languages as far back as 2, 500 years.This is true. That's why I'm only suggesting that the notion of Celtic culture stretching back further than three or four hundred years is erroneous. Linguistically, it's fine.

[TomasFlannabhra]

Caesar also describes a species of German elk that does not have knees - he's best taken with a wagon of salt when he's not discussing Roman politics or military tactics.

While he certainly may have had a bias concerning the Gaulish peoples and introduced Roman propaganda in his commentaries, and there are more than likely misperceptions of Celtic practices and customs, I don't think it is wise to just completely dismiss or undermine his work.

Seeing that Southern Gaul had trade connections with Greece, and even Greek colonies in the area, it is possible that 'Celtae' derived from the Greek 'Keltoi'.

Anyway, I do see what you're saying, though.

[ancestral_lee]

hi Storm Vixen,

i would start with archeology. look up what these people did and how they lived. the journal of british archeology is available free onlin - have a look at that for starters... http://www.britarch.ac.uk/BA/ba.html with back issues online too. damn good recoource. franci pryor is another good book to get - one called 'Seahenge'.

i think that as far as some sort of reconstruction goes you will find references to the development of ancestor worship to deity worship during the bronze age.