What's wrong with the Druids?

Okay Shakiva, explain to me what you've got against the Druids and are glad they are "gone"?

I am confused.

Worry not, it will get sorted soon enough.

Now that I think on it, depending on when Shakvia responds, I may not be able to respond until some time Sunday night, as I will be away for a few days... I have some time tomorrow, maybe then...

Well, whatever you've got planned, have fun.

Gorm_Sionnach wrote:Okay Shakiva, explain to me what you've got against the Druids and are glad they are "gone"?

Sorry Gorm, I didn't see you started this! Hurray!

Ok, everyone must know that I love to debate. I say this because, on other boards, people really took offense as if I were picking on them (one Lutheran comes to mind) and I wasn't. So I'll start this with a big 'no offense intended' - I debate to learn.

Now then, I must state that my understanding of Druidic culture .... since, sadly, no actual Druidic documents survived.... comes from Ceasar and a few others.

And Archaeological evidence of human sacrifice, such as:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090320-druids-sacrifice-cannibalism.html

While it is true that every culture has, at one point in time, practiced some form of human sacrifice... the druids seem to have practiced it a lot. This bothers me a good deal and makes me rather glad they are no more.

The floor is yours Gorm; sock it to me

1. Caesar had motivations that actually make what he wrote just a bit suspect. Remember, he said much the same about Christians.

2. I really think the Mayans and Aztecs probably had the market cornered here, rather than the Druids.

I think you are right SG, you know I love you Sak and would never intend to offend, but I think the Druids were maligned by the invaders.

In no scientific way at all, anyone who holds the Oak sacred could not be bad. Trees (as a rule) do not like violence.

Love you guys too The link addresses the common belief that Romans were, somehow, biased against the Druids; in addition to touching on that, and in a shocking turn, the National Geographic link discusses recent archaeological evidence which substantiates what the Romans, like Caesar, observed causing many historians to say 'oh'.

BTW, the term 'Druid' comes from Caesar's writings (specifically the Commentarii de Bello Gallico’ book VI), much like the term 'Pagan' comes from the early Christian mother church. So it's odd that we might deny the writings of Caesar and others, yet cling to a term they coined.

~~~~~~~~
Not to prove my above point; but just to offer up a neat (and brief) historical read, the following link lists some 'snippets' from classical texts are neatly organized:

http://darkages.espadana-walker.com/spip.php?article14

Click the various names in the pink box to change author.

(The practice of augury isn't something I'm fond of either btw.)

~~~~~~~

On yet another note, looking up things about the topic of Human Sacrifice, it's obvious that no culture is without blood on their hands. For any who cling to a belief system of old, how are we to cope? Do we simply pretend that actions we don’t currently stomach ever really happened (though physical proof shows otherwise)? Or do we extract practices that are no longer viewed as moral, and keep with the rest? Or do we view ancient practices in light of human evolution, and therefore practice a religion that has also evolved?

Gorm_Sionnach wrote:Now that I think on it, depending on when Shakvia responds, I may not be able to respond until some time Sunday night, as I will be away for a few days... I have some time tomorrow, maybe then...

I'll not write any more until you hop back on the Druid train

In the meantime, I'm gonna read up a bit more.

In a way it is interesting, the Druids may not have had a formal name, or what it was may have sounded like what we call Druid, since it would appear much of what went on was secret it is unlikely the Romans would have been privy to very much, and I doubt they were invited to a ceremony that involved human sacrifice.

However sadly many peoples may have preformed human sacrifice over the years so probably, no community of humans is free of that stain.

Romans being the conquering peoples would malign those they were forcing into extinction as much as possible. We all know this happens, the winners write the stories.
Perhaps the druids were not angels, but then who is? And there is so little of their knowledge left. So I much prefer to believe they were not what has been written.
And I have not received a UPG about them so my spiritual knowledge of them is limited.

My two cents.

Hmmmm...,

Ritual human sacrifice looked at askance by a people who gathered by the thousands to watch the spectacle of gladiatorial combat. Anyone else feeling the irony?

You can look at ANY culture of the past and say "whew, I'm glad they're not around any more" but when we do so we do a disservice to those who came before us. We didn't live in their world and we have little room (in my opinion) to judge them by modern standards (whatever THAT means).

No doubt our descendants will look at our society with every bit as critical an eye - how many will be happy that we're not around anymore?

Dromahair wrote:Hmmmm...,

Ritual human sacrifice looked at askance by a people who gathered by the thousands to watch the spectacle of gladiatorial combat. Anyone else feeling the irony?

You can look at ANY culture of the past and say "whew, I'm glad they're not around any more" but when we do so we do a disservice to those who came before us. We didn't live in their world and we have little room (in my opinion) to judge them by modern standards (whatever THAT means).

No doubt our descendants will look at our society with every bit as critical an eye - how many will be happy that we're not around anymore?

Sakhaiva wrote:

On yet another note, looking up things about the topic of Human Sacrifice, it's obvious that no culture is without blood on their hands. For any who cling to a belief system of old, how are we to cope? Do we simply pretend that actions we don’t currently stomach ever really happened (though physical proof shows otherwise)? Or do we extract practices that are no longer viewed as moral, and keep with the rest? Or do we view ancient practices in light of human evolution, and therefore practice a religion that has also evolved?

If a person desires to hold to a historical belief system, Roman, Pagan, Judaic or otherwise, then they have no choice but to judge what they read and learn about with modern (what ever that means) eyes. We are all a product of our place and time, in more ways than we could be aware of.

As for the generations to come, we have no way of knowing what historical evidence will survive us to let them know we were here.

Sakhaiva wrote:

If a person desires to hold to a historical belief system, Roman, Pagan, Judaic or otherwise, then they have no choice but to judge what they read and learn about with modern (what ever that means) eyes. We are all a product of our place and time, in more ways than we could be aware of.

We're more than just a product of our time, we're products of all that came before us as well (the good and the bad) - a pretty good reason (in my view) for not simply dismissing things out of hand because they seem unsightly in the now. If a person wishes to hold a historical belief system he or she would do well to get past judging it (by any criteria) and start trying to understand it for what it was. This does not mean one has to approve of or condone such practices in the modern day. It simply means we don't necessarily judge a people as bad (or worthy of extinction) because of a practice or belief they held which, when taken out of the context of time and culture, is viewed as negative.

When I was a kid I rode everywhere on a bicycle without pads or helmet of ANY kind. Parents can be fined for allowing their kids to do so today (a fact that has me convinced our culture is DOOMED). My parents were not bad people because they didn't require me to suit up in armor before jumping on my bike - or wear a seat-belt in the back of a station-wagon. I know it's not human sacrifice (boogida-boogida), but by the way some people react to it you'd think it was!

Human sacrifice, like any form of killing in the name of religion can be judged by the standards of the twin questions: who was killed, how were they killed?

If the answer is criminals and captured enemies, then enslavement and death were pretty much the accepted fate of the losers. Vie Victus is Latin for woe to the fallen. The Romans accepted it as well as everyone else. Dark Age Christianity and Medieval Christianity and Islam practiced ritualized torture/murder as well, but modern Christians don't seem to be tainted with this brush somehow.

Why is it that I have to answer for human sacrifice of criminals and enemies when the Inquisition and the murderous suppression of the Saxon Heathens cannot be laid at the Christians door?

No. The ancients lived in a world where the lives of any but your own kind were of little value, where slavery was accepted amongst the most civilized, and where public torture and murder were considered to be tools of education and public order, when it was not just entertainment.

I am of an ancient faith. I am a modern man. If you want to point the finger at any ancient people, you must first find one without the very same crimes to claim as your own. Good luck in that. No people that thrived in hard times did so with the morality we can only afford now in the First World.

John you have an excellent point there. The inquisitors never get the blame or even mentioned for their many human sacrifices, and that is not all that long ago.

Funny how Christianity forgets all their own crimes.

Sakhaiva wrote:

Gorm_Sionnach wrote:Okay Shakiva, explain to me what you've got against the Druids and are glad they are "gone"?

Sorry Gorm, I didn't see you started this! Hurray!

Ok, everyone must know that I love to debate. I say this because, on other boards, people really took offense as if I were picking on them (one Lutheran comes to mind) and I wasn't. So I'll start this with a big 'no offense intended' - I debate to learn.

Now then, I must state that my understanding of Druidic culture .... since, sadly, no actual Druidic documents survived.... comes from Ceasar and a few others.

And Archaeological evidence of human sacrifice, such as:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090320-druids-sacrifice-cannibalism.html

While it is true that every culture has, at one point in time, practiced some form of human sacrifice... the druids seem to have practiced it a lot. This bothers me a good deal and makes me rather glad they are no more.

The floor is yours Gorm; sock it to me

Well Drom has already brought up a valid point about the hypocritical stance the Roman observers took in regards to other cultures reasons for killing. The Druids and by proxy many of the Celtic cultures did indeed perform human sacrifices, the Roman sources are considerably biased and the way they are written are rather hyperbolic in their description of the Druidic blood lust, understandable for a culture which was currently conquering another. Having said that, the Greek sources which predate the Roman ones do speak about the practice of human sacrifice, and there was not the same sort of impetus for those historians to exaggerate the culture they were observing. All too often people will argue from the belief that the entirety of Druidic human sacrifice was nothing but propaganda, which swings to the other side of the argument too far. In so far as the NG article about cannibalism go, I'm rather cautious when ascribing too much information about cultural and more specifically ritual practices gleaned from scant material evidence, as is the case with the bone scrapings.

I think that in general many people tend to take the contemporary (continental ) sources at face value while ignoring the early medieval sources (insular). While the insular sources (which are primarily Irish and Welsh) were recorded by Christian scribes, there is much that remained pre-Christian in idea and clearly predated the coming of Christianity. Keeping in mind that the scribes had no love for the Druids, as the numerous Irish hagiographical texts show, there is almost no mention of the practices of the practice of Human Sacrifices in the existing texts, and when it is it is expressed as an aberration from the norm. I prefer to balance the continental and insular sources, but maintaining a critical eye is always a good method of exploring history.

Now, those are the sources, lets get to the reasons why...

In terms of IE cosmogony, the creation of either the earth or the cosmos involved some form of bodily destruction of a divine being in which the earth/cosmos are constructed. A divine twin and their yak, a dismembered Giant, the castration of a Titian, and so on, these form the basis of the cosmogenic myths which permeate the Indo-European cultures mythological framework. Now from cosmogony we move to anthropogony, where the process is essentially reversed, the first humans/ animals/ what have you, were formed from the material of the cosmos, the sun making the eyes, the wind making the breath, the stone making bones, etc. The process is then once again reversed in the act of ritual sacrifice, the purpose of which was to renew the cosmos through the death (and often dismemberment) of a human or animal, and thus the cycle completes itself. This is the ritualistic framework for the practice of human, and as time progressed human became animal (a gross usage of the term animal, but you get my meaning). There is unfortunately no surviving Celtic cosmogenic myth, although there is a medieval text involving the "Seven or Eight part Adam" in which the anthropogenic aspect is clear, and ties back into the wider IE framework.

Now in regards to current understanding, well I explained the ritualistic significance of such practices, and in so far as CR's go, this is how we understand them (from my experience anyway). I have not really interacted with a large number of neoDruids but the acceptance of human sacrifice ranges from the one I've expressed to they didn't do it at all, to it does not mater WE don't do it. I think it is something which people simply have to come to terms with if they desire any sort of authentic understanding of it, however as per the religious reasons I explained above, from that perspective, they were not understood in their culture to have been problematic. Judging a historic group with modern sensibilities is always problematic and good historians do as little judging as possible.

In terms of modern practices, I have yet to see any CR advocate for the reintroduction of human sacrifices, and I do not think it is going to, modern sensibilities and ethics simply will not allow it. Some have simply done away with the idea, or relegated it to the past; which can be reasoned out as part of a CR view of had the Celts never been Christianized, would they still be practicing human sacrifice today? There is evidence at the time that human sacrifices were being replaced with those of animal, so there is certainly merit to such a stance. Others have replaced the physical human with another symbolic cognate of the human body, plant material. There are texts which ascribe certain parts of the human body to different plants and herbs, which are grown harvested, made into a human shape and ritually dismembered. Obviously a modern method, but symbolically representative of the reasoning behind human sacrifice.

Gorm_Sionnach wrote:
..... the acceptance of human sacrifice ranges from the one I've expressed to they didn't do it at all, to it does not mater WE don't do it. I think it is something which people simply have to come to terms with if they desire any sort of authentic understanding of it, however as per the religious reasons I explained above, from that perspective, they were not understood in their culture to have been problematic.

True - anyone who attempts to practice a historical belief system will have to cope with the problem that our value system, today, does not match that of the ancients... or does it?


You know Gorm, this whole topic brought to my attention something I've thought little about till now; regarding the ugly nature of human sacrifice, the problem isn't that it used to be done. The problem is that we (as a society) still do it; we call it the "death penalty"

I was reading that it actually costs more to kill an inmate than to keep them alive their whole life... so, then, what is the point of taking a life? How is it different than historical forms of human sacrifice? Isn't the current myth of 'ridding ourselves of a *bad* person to somehow cleanse society' just another version of the ol' scapegoat trick?

Interesting notion to face....

Without sticking my nose into the ethicals of death penalty, I do want to mention that I'm not sure how it costs more to snuff an inmate than to keep him alive; the prison system is heavily expensive on our tax dollars and with all the meals, clothes, exercise equipment, cable TV, etc. an inmate receives I don't know where the author of that notion came to her conclusion. Not trying to be argumentative, just speaking from a strictly monetary point of view.

... except that what is lacking in the sense of human sacrifce when it comes to the death penalty, is that it has no religious significance whatsoever. Criminals who are executed are not done so in any sort of regenitive or even symbolic gesture to propigate the cosmos or appease some form of divinity. There is nothing sacred (sacrifice meaning to make sacred) about executing a criminal as far as the modern understanding goes, so to call them sacrifices is not a particularly helpful way to look at it, imho.

I have seen the death penatly argured for as a preventitive measure (i.e. no chance for a dead person to reoffend) and as a deterent (which has basically been shown to be totally ineffective). I do not believe that people are utilizing the death penatly, or even understand it as a sacrificial gesture...

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:Without sticking my nose into the ethicals of death penalty, I do want to mention that I'm not sure how it costs more to snuff an inmate than to keep him alive; the prison system is heavily expensive on our tax dollars and with all the meals, clothes, exercise equipment, cable TV, etc. an inmate receives I don't know where the author of that notion came to her conclusion. Not trying to be argumentative, just speaking from a strictly monetary point of view.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:Without sticking my nose into the ethicals of death penalty, I do want to mention that I'm not sure how it costs more to snuff an inmate than to keep him alive; the prison system is heavily expensive on our tax dollars and with all the meals, clothes, exercise equipment, cable TV, etc. an inmate receives I don't know where the author of that notion came to her conclusion. Not trying to be argumentative, just speaking from a strictly monetary point of view.

Appeals. It's all in the appeals.

Ok Gorm, I wanted to reread your post a few times before writing..... sorry to have derailed the topic btw; my mind went on a bit of a tangent re: death penalty (though I think I was onto something Albeit, something not very original)

Gorm_Sionnach wrote:

Sakhaiva wrote:

Gorm_Sionnach wrote:Okay Shakiva, explain to me what you've got against the Druids and are glad they are "gone"?

Sorry Gorm, I didn't see you started this! Hurray!

Ok, everyone must know that I love to debate. I say this because, on other boards, people really took offense as if I were picking on them (one Lutheran comes to mind) and I wasn't. So I'll start this with a big 'no offense intended' - I debate to learn.

Now then, I must state that my understanding of Druidic culture .... since, sadly, no actual Druidic documents survived.... comes from Ceasar and a few others.

And Archaeological evidence of human sacrifice, such as:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090320-druids-sacrifice-cannibalism.html

While it is true that every culture has, at one point in time, practiced some form of human sacrifice... the druids seem to have practiced it a lot. This bothers me a good deal and makes me rather glad they are no more.

The floor is yours Gorm; sock it to me

Well Drom has already brought up a valid point about the hypocritical stance the Roman observers took in regards to other cultures reasons for killing. The Druids and by proxy many of the Celtic cultures did indeed perform human sacrifices, the Roman sources are considerably biased and the way they are written are rather hyperbolic in their description of the Druidic blood lust, understandable for a culture which was currently conquering another. Having said that, the Greek sources which predate the Roman ones do speak about the practice of human sacrifice, and there was not the same sort of impetus for those historians to exaggerate the culture they were observing. All too often people will argue from the belief that the entirety of Druidic human sacrifice was nothing but propaganda, which swings to the other side of the argument too far. In so far as the NG article about cannibalism go, I'm rather cautious when ascribing too much information about cultural and more specifically ritual practices gleaned from scant material evidence, as is the case with the bone scrapings.

Really well stated Gorm, I respect your view

I think that in general many people tend to take the contemporary (continental ) sources at face value while ignoring the early medieval sources (insular).

I agree, and here is why: using google (as I've little access to actual books these days) to locate any 'hard' data on Druids, Celts ... any early Isle folk... and what I find is a bunch of stories and opinions with no sources cited. It's a real challenge to locate data as you've mentioned. It's a real challenge to learn anything solid about ancient Britian as it's history consists of wave after wave of invasions over a 12,000 year period.... picking through this is like putting a giant jigsaw puzzle together where half the pieces are missing. In any case, I admit that I often lean towards Roman letters because I tend to find those sources to be more reliable and/or closer to the point on the timeline I'm interested in.

Regarding historical writings from the Isle folk; what little I've had the pleasure to read can be found here: http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/irish.html#historical and here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/cmt/cmteng.htm

I also thought this was a neat site http://www.isle-of-skye.org.uk/celtic-encyclopaedia/celt_ind.htm What do you think of those sites?

I prefer to balance the continental and insular sources, but maintaining a critical eye is always a good method of exploring history.

Agreed; very descartesian of you

Now, those are the sources, lets get to the reasons why...

In terms of IE cosmogony, the creation of either the earth or the cosmos involved some form of bodily destruction of a divine being in which the earth/cosmos are constructed. A divine twin and their yak, a dismembered Giant, the castration of a Titian, and so on, these form the basis of the cosmogenic myths which permeate the Indo-European cultures mythological framework. Now from cosmogony we move to anthropogony, where the process is essentially reversed, the first humans/ animals/ what have you, were formed from the material of the cosmos, the sun making the eyes, the wind making the breath, the stone making bones, etc. The process is then once again reversed in the act of ritual sacrifice, the purpose of which was to renew the cosmos through the death (and often dismemberment) of a human or animal, and thus the cycle completes itself. This is the ritualistic framework for the practice of human, and as time progressed human became animal (a gross usage of the term animal, but you get my meaning). There is unfortunately no surviving Celtic cosmogenic myth, although there is a medieval text involving the "Seven or Eight part Adam" in which the anthropogenic aspect is clear, and ties back into the wider IE framework.

Now in regards to current understanding, well I explained the ritualistic significance of such practices, and in so far as CR's go, this is how we understand them (from my experience anyway). I have not really interacted with a large number of neoDruids but the acceptance of human sacrifice ranges from the one I've expressed to they didn't do it at all, to it does not mater WE don't do it. I think it is something which people simply have to come to terms with if they desire any sort of authentic understanding of it

really good point (and one that I agree with)

however as per the religious reasons I explained above, from that perspective, they were not understood in their culture to have been problematic.

Again, true; just like how cultures that still practice stoning do not find it shocking (to outsiders, it is indeed very shocking!) Morality depends upon one's culture/place/time. I still find the problem of *how* one come's to term with outdated practices to be very interesting.

In terms of modern practices, I have yet to see any CR advocate for the reintroduction of human sacrifices, and I do not think it is going to, modern sensibilities and ethics simply will not allow it. Some have simply done away with the idea, or relegated it to the past; which can be reasoned out as part of a CR view of had the Celts never been Christianized, would they still be practicing human sacrifice today? There is evidence at the time that human sacrifices were being replaced with those of animal, so there is certainly merit to such a stance. Others have replaced the physical human with another symbolic cognate of the human body, plant material. There are texts which ascribe certain parts of the human body to different plants and herbs, which are grown harvested, made into a human shape and ritually dismembered. Obviously a modern method, but symbolically representative of the reasoning behind human sacrifice.

So you are saying that if the Druids were allowed to evolve with the rest of us ... your evidence shows they might not still practice these acts just as Rome no longer promotes bloodbaths as sport. Excellent point, and one that makes a good deal of sense to me.

You guys are so smart, I love hanging around with you. I learn stuff too

No sarcasm at all intended.

HA! there's no way you'ld be talkin' about me!

I'm just a simple single mom with no college education to speak of and no job (at least not one that's paying) whose just smart enough to know how dumb she really is.

(As stereotypes go, I'm pretty low on the ol' meter.)

But hell, it's fun to visit and type, isn't it?