Welcome to Gaia! ::

lately, i have been questioning the validity of using the word 'druid' as a title, including, but not limited to, using it as a label for someone belonging to ADF, OBOD, Keltria, etc (read, groups that define themselves as 'druidic').

for one. the druids were a caste in the celtic culture, compromising the lawyers, the priests, the scholars, the historians, the judges, the bards, often the teachers, and generally the intelligista. how many of us who claim the title of 'druid' actually fill all of these categories?

as well as being certain roles in celtic life, they had to be a celt. what does that mean? it means having been raised in the celtic environment. either they were born in one of the many places known to be inhabited by the celts and raised in that culture, or they were raised in the culture in a remote area.

another point. to be a druid, when they were at their prime, one would have had to school for many many many years. i imagine it fairly comparable to the present requirement for schooling (elementary school, middle school, high school, optional post-secondary). however, the druids were supposed to have very keen memory, and essentially be able to spout off all the stories/myths of their clan, and irish druids had to be able to spout off the brehon laws as well.

how this caste was passed down was by oration. very few things written down by the celts remain, and fewer by the druids. there are no texts written by the druids as to what they practiced and what they believed. all we have to go on is what those outside of the culture, mostly romans, viewed as druidic practices. even those are thoroughly drenched in ethnocentrism. the druidic tradition was passed on by word of mouth, hence why memory was so cherished.

there is no line of unbroken druidry. the druids either converted or died off, having been eventually outlawed in some areas to practice druid rites. who then, could be left to teach the next druid if they died out?

these thoughts have come about after much soul searching and discussion. i've talked it over with a few other celtic recons (a few of which can claim celtic descent due to being raised in the culture) and some other ADF members.

i'm not trying to say practices and beliefs aren't valid. but rather, is the name some of us go by appropriate and actually conveying our spiritual path?

By the same argument one can question the title of witch that so many claim as well. I think it becomes a case where the titles so strictly applied in the past are rather loosely applied now. It gives a name to the path we follow rather than just lumping us all under the name "pagan" which is also a misnomer. I live in the city. It is sad that such definitions must change but it is necessary to make things easier to distinguish.

It is difficult to exactly duplicate the way of life that would be required to truly be under one of these titles because modern life is nothing like the time when these titles first came about. It's all a part of the reconstrunctionist movement to try to reclaim these titles as best we can and evolve them for the modern world we live in. Most pagans I know are aware that they may not fit the ancient mold but do the best they can. That, I believe, is a worthy effort. It seems like a better idea for folks who are involved in reconstructionism to try to reclaim old titles and ideas rather try to create new titles and ideas...it seems to defeat the purpose.

Most people use the term Druid as opposed to lets say Bard or Ovate, because most are unfamilliar with the inner working of the class system. I personally don't want to take the time explaining it to a person who just casually asks about my belief system as a part of idle conversation. Druid does just fine.

Really? My research always indicated that a witch was one who was a teacher and a healer. Often one who works with herbs and other such materials to achieve helpful results for the local people. Witches where ones who worked with their "wits" and as a result were often seen as people who were educated and often their advice was sought. Some evidence suggested that they held places in various local councils as well. Granted I make no claims of being an expert on witches. If what you are suggesting is true, then why aren't we all calling ourselves witches then?


Yes, I have read that book. Doesn't he mention too that Druid's were written about in other texts from other cultures. Which is what most reconstructionists go by. Sure these other texts may be biased but they do give some clue. Also that book makes reference to other archeaological evidence that is used by reconstructionists to piece together the clues of what life and education for the druids might have meant. Reconstructionists are just that...reconstructing. Ofcourse no absolute text exists for all to refer to. Most pagan religions don't have absolute ancient texts to refer to for one reason or another. That book also mentions a fact about the definition of Pagan. Pagan at the time was used to refer to those in the country side who followed a hearth religion. It sounds like you are referring to a more recent concept of the term pagan. It seems strange that you would try to apply a recent definition of paganism to a discussion when you are arguing that druids should not be trying to use a more recent or different vision of druidism.


Would you prefer neo-druid then? Just as the pagans title and witch title are no longer carrying the meanings they once were, why should druid be forced to remain the same as well? Why is it forced to remain stagnant while the ideals of wicca, witchcraft, and paganism are free to change? Hellenistic sorceresses and priestess/priests most certainly did not follow the rules of the new wiccan movement...yet, those who follow the Hellenistic path tend to call themselves witches and closely follow wicca. Yet, that is more acceptable than a person calling themselves a druid for simplicity or for need of a name to put on their belief structure that there share with so many others.



It seems to justify it for so many other flavours of pagans, why not?


It is not entirely lost. It is being pieced together as best can be through the use of other texts and archeaological evidence. The other movements have about the same amount of knowledge of their paths past as we do. They can claim their titles and I feel so can we. Some ADF members do follow those roles. Are you suggesting that they are more "druidly" than the rest? I am an archeaologist. I hold a Classics degree. Does that qualify me as a historian? Possibly. Does it make me more "druidic" than most. No. If someone was indeed all things, a healer, a lawyer, a judge, a priest, a councilman, a historian (and so on...as there were many roles they filled)...does that make them more druid? No....just busy.
I myself am focused on the welsh pantheon. Not all members of the adf are focused on indo-europeans. I thought that in the dedicant materials they suggested a focus on celtic but left the option open for those who didn't want to follow that path. I think that in that case the idea of druidism is definitely valid for the ADF and it's policies.

Let me talk about a couple of things first before I continue with this discussion:
1. Sorry about the delay in responses. It's hard for me to get references and make sure my argument is correct while I'm packing my books away for my move.
2. I do not appreciate you starting a thread in another forum regarding this discussion with the title "She really stuck her foot in it this time." That goes against everything this forum stands for. If you have merely started this topic to cause trouble, it is not welcome. I had assumed you started this topic to have an actual dialogue on the topic, not to form it as an attack...which your thread in the other forum suggests.
3. I do not consider online sources to be the most reliable nor are they the last word in a matter. My university would never accept them, I do not either.

I was not saying that the ADF is witchcraft. Please read the argument over again. I was making an example of the generalizations that you seem to be proposing we make. MY example was that such a generalization would not work. The ADF is not wicca, thus the title of witch would not work. The title of druidism in this case may be a bit more appropriate than the title of witch.

I never said that the word witch was culture specific. I don't understand what your point is. Your online dictionary is not a final resource on the definition of the word Witch or the word Druid. I don't think that settles the argument on definitions.

Please read again the part where I mention the biased nature of the texts. Yes, we realize the texts are biased. Some truth does remain in them, reading between the lines is always helpful in this case and ofcourse cross referencing with other sources is a useful tool, any clues that match with physical evidence are usually the strongly supported theories. This is often the process that archaeology has to go through. There is a good deal of work that still needs to be done. Nothing is ever conclusive when it comes to archaeology.

Refer again the word reconstructing...I did not say that everythingwas uncovered, I said reconstruction was taking place. A study of the past takes time.

As you say, the word pagan has extended to mean other things. My question there was why can't the meaning of Druid? Definitions are constantly added to words or changed. Language has always been an evolving thing. Why do you keep suggesting that it can evolve for certain things but not for others? That is inconsistent. You then later suggest that Witchcraft and Paganism haven't changed that drastically. I look at the pagans and witches I know and really wonder what you mean by that. They don't seem to fit the mold of the witches and pagans I've studied in my social sciences, anthropology or archaeology courses. The practice has definitely changed.

I wasn't talking about present day Hellenic sorceresses and priestesses/priests. My point was, and you aparently agreed that these people weren't wiccan (notice the past tense). I don't know why you used the present tense and had to restate. My point, which I'm thinking you missed. Was that the Hellenic followers of past were not Wiccan yet there are so many Wiccan now who follow the Hellenic path. It is an example of the changes that take place in paganism, some of them even cultural, and how titles have changed with them. I referred to this again in my argument and it seemed to confuse you, I'm thinking you missed this first point.

I did a thesis on oral traditions. They are quite fascinating actually. Did you realise that oral traditions are not static? They change, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, with each generation. They are not memorized word for word. Ideas and concepts are memorized, not the wording, which ofcourse leads to regional variations and over time a change. There are many cultures that began with only oral traditions. For example, Greek myths being a more popular one. The greek mythology most of us have read from Homer is a compilation of stories that were cross referenced from stories all over the country to try and homogenize the myths. Some versions were discarded, others modified. Today Homer is considered a reliable source for most of the more popular myths and god relations. At its source it was in no way a pure resource. It was derived from oral tradition, written down when oral tradition was failing due to its variations. The same is true for our sources on Celtic mythology and their references to Druids. There are few records (mostly Irish in origin I believe, my books are packed I believe they are reffered to in The Druid's by Peter Ellis) that are indeed written in the same fashion. My point here, is that there are very few pure sources in the world...in fact I can't think of any absolutely true pure sources. Time and study makes reliable sources. Oral tradition is also never permanent. Many cultures as you know have evolved from their oral tradition roots, some evidence suggests (the fact that there are a few written records and an ogam) that the Druids were also evolving from this. Since oral tradition had a habit of variating so much within itself, is it so difficult to believe that the path and requirements of druidism are not set in stone.

The druid's did not practice only among the Celtic people. They did travel. There are records of Druid's occasionally preforming as council to other cultures including the Romans. Usually these other cultures were ones that came in contact with the early Celts ofcourse. Druids did not exclusively reserve their ministerings for the Celts, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that they would work with whomever would listen. Otherwise evidence would not exist of them in other cultures history books.

Keep in mind people are not taking the title of Druid to claim as a profession, they are using it as a name for their spiritual path. A druid is more than the jobs they do these days. In the past the title of Druid was a profession, a way of life, and a spiritual path. In the modern world I'm not too sure how a professional druid would survive.

I'm sure you have heard of the mother tongue before? I'm not talking about a spiritual concept here but an anthropological and archaeological one. Just in case I'll lightly summarize the idea. The mother tongue is the great language that all the other languages have come from. This is why there are many similarities in the languages of other countries, some more related than others. Often these languages developed as the prehistoric nomad tribes moved throughout Europe, Asia, and beyond. The mother tongue is believed to have fragmented many times. No one knows the mother tongue, linguists are still working on going back as far as possible using some of the oldest languages in the world. One of the early fragments of the mother tongue was an Indo-European branch. Suggesting a larger Indo-European tribe which fragmented further as they moved. This Indo-European tongue gave birth to: Gaelic, Welsh, Greek, Latin, etc. With these mother tongue connections also come spiritual connections. There are many similarities in the pantheons, differences ofcourse occur with the fragmenting of the tribes. This is where the link of the Celts and Indo-European culture are. That is why I do not have a problem with a person with a more Indo-European focus being a druid. They share the same roots.

By the way, folks could be a vestal virgin if they got high a lot and were fed information through the use of deductive reasoning and spies to produce "prophecies". Archaeology uncovered their "mystery" a long time ago. ^O^;

fine by me. it's a forum. i expect an answer in however much time it takes to get an answer.

i said the prove/disprove this argument. i'm perfectly fine to be disproven. i have given much thought to this and was looking for other sources to consider as well. i'm not trying to make this an attack. if i were, there would be no doubt. as it is, i respect reagun ban, who is firmly against any using the title 'druid', and his many conversations gave me pause.

the 'she' in the other thread is me, by the way.

the sites i use, i compared to my actual dictionary, and they said word for word, hence why i used them. i'll be sure to use no more online sites.

what generalization?

i never proposed that we accept the title of 'witch'.

i'm not saying you are. you mentioned that many people claim it but there doesn't seem to be much fuss about it. meanwhile, 'druid' is very culture specific, so it should hence be limited to that culture.

i'll go ahead and post the definitions that i got from my other dictionary, that i compared the online one to, when i get home, as well as it's info.

and until we have a definite concept, is is accurate to potentially be labeled something that we don't know for sure relates to our practices?

i'm not, but also, the meanings don't change so drastically as that. you mentioned before how in The Druids, 'pagan' was used to refer to the country dwellers who practiced a hearth religion of sorts. that was extended, but not changed, to those outside of christianity, judaism, and islam. how can the definition of 'druid' be extended if we don't know where it originates (in relation to their beliefs, practices, teachings, etc)?

i don't propose that witchcraft and paganism themselves have or haven't changed, but that the words have been extended.

either way, why would they want to follow Wicca's rules when they aren't Wiccan?

because they don't follow the rules of Wicca, and they didn't live in the right time period (if you are talking about past Hellenics). we don't know what the rules of being a druid were, so then how can we follow them?

but proposed Hellenic Wiccans aren't claiming to be priests, lawgivers, judges, etc of that (Greek) specific culture. again, the Hellenics of long ago couldn't be considered Wiccan because Wicca was made in the 1950's by Gerald Gardner. and which Wiccans follow the Hellenic path?

it does confuse me as to how you are comparing a religion made up 50-60 years ago to a path that has been long dead even before said religion.

but no one wrote down what the druids did/believed exactly. all we have are bits and pieces written from an outsider's opinion, and then we must reconstruct from them. which would then be celtic reconstructionism, but that doesn't automatically make it druidry.

how can one have a continuation of an oral tradition when those that passed that oral tradition on died or converted and were outlawed from practicing that tradition?

yes, we've got a few scraps of some of how can we suppose that that is the entirety? a few observers outside of the culture made a few remarks, yes, but how does that expount on what the druids believed went with the action that they performed?

but did they retain a written document at any time expounding upon what the druids believed, practiced, etc, in detail? from everything i've ever read or heard of, the druids eventually died off or converted and didn't write down anything of their beliefs.

by what validation do we use the title? what makes this spiritual path so similar to the druids' path that we use their title to describe it? how does it designate us as different from many other indo-european reconstructionists out there?

except they're using a word exclusive to a culture they might not be practicing in. yes, the celtic language was derived from an indo-european language (as well as many other languages). but 'druid' came from the celtic language, not from the indo-european. it would be like an italian strega calling themselves a 'bruja' because spanish and italian came from essentially the same branch of languages. it doesn't inherently mean they are the same however.

i speak of 'mysteries' in the sense of initiatory, oathbound information. how they came up with the prophecies, i really don't care (does it make it any more or less valid that the oracle at delphi got high off of sulfur gases? i don't care). there were secrets to the traditions that only those initiated into it could eventually know. there were things they did not keep public, which is akin to what the druids did.

i wasn't proposing anything. i don't think i ever said 'we should just be labeled as ****'.

i'm not. yet.

i know they were quite well spread. at their heyday, they went all the way from spain to turkey, and from italy to parts of norway (i believe). yet that doesn't make their culture the entirety of the indo-european culture.

i'm not addressing those in here. i have elsewhere, and potentially will eventually when i learn more of them, but many seem to label themselves as 'reconstructionist' thereby allowing some leeway to their practices and beliefs.

and my entire argument is 'is that title justified?'

i understand that things change. however, how can we say that it is valid to call ourselves druids when we don't even know how the druids practiced, believed, were taught? if we don't know much about the original, how can we make an accurate recreation?

nope. i'm saying that since it died off, with no one to pass it on, that no one has the ability to say what it was and was not, and therefore cannot be attributed accurately. there is no one to say definitively 'this is what the druids did/believed' (in its entirety) so how are we to then capable of recreating, or redefining, if we don't know the original?

how can we accurately label it as 'druid' if we don't know what it was in the first place? the druid tradition is long dead, and by what right do we use the title?

yet we have nothing to verify that they are still the ideals of the druids. we have nothing to describe the entirety of their beliefs. we have no writings from anyone who was a druid describing anything of their practices, beliefs, or ideals. we have only the writings of celtic christians, pro-roman sources, and very very few, remotely unbiased sources. as it is, Pliny is even the only one to mention a mistletoe ceremony, with no one else to verify the claim (The Druids, PBE).

how do we rebuild what we know so little about, and still retain the right to call ourselves by that title?

except it didn't just adapt. it was outlawed and died off.

how do we know what the criteria of 'druid' actually is? for that matter, many Christians fit into this criteria (as well as others in different denominations). does that make them a druid?

how is that scholarly or accurate? by this reasoning, it's okay for some to claim to be privy to the Eleusian Mysteries because it is eventually what they wish to attain.

there is no proof to back that up, though. and i'm fine adopting 'aspiring druid'. but we still get into not really knowing what the druids did, believed, etc.

i'm not saying does it degrade the meaning. i'm asking is it accurate, justified, and what right merits it?

and i've conceeded this point. my other point still stands. how can we call ourselves what we know not entirely of?

i would object to that phrasing, because the ember long died out and a new fire has been lit.

and my argument addresses them as well.

yet how do the word and concept elude to and encompass the practices and beliefs?

so then how do we rightly justify calling ourselves by their title? why can't we make a new title?

again, what's so wrong with making a modern equivalent under a new title? we don't know what they would have evolved into because we don't know where they originated.

which ones? if they follow the rules of Wicca, and were initiated, they can still be considered Wiccan. those who are claiming to be Hellenic Reconstructionists aren't claiming a title to a priesthood/scholarly caste (not that i've seen). the Greeks were so diverce that there were multiple priesthoods (only outnumbered by the Romans), as well as multiple myths (the myths we hold today as Greek come from Homer).

but are they claiming a title specific to that culture's intelligista?

does that make it accurate or justified? that is my question to the use of the title 'druid'.

as long as they're not claiming a title of a dead path, especially in the absence of full knowledge of the path, i'm fine. which groups are claiming such titles? most i've come across have titles that are related to the culture they are placing their religious path in, but they are not using an already established title (other than 'reconstructionist').

my point is that there were mysteries involved. again, i use the example of the Eleusian Mysteries. because there were mysteries, one had to be initiated into it, keeping the education of the beliefs or practices out of mainstream knowledge, akin to what the druids did. when those who were the last to know of such practices died off, those rituals and mysteries became lost, as well as justification for holding those titles.

*i won't be responding this weekend as i have a festival to attend until sunday afternoon. i'm not ignoring this discussion and look forward to coming back to it.

I don't normally post here. I'm not particularly the most welcome person here. I don't acknowledge, appreciate or condone your use of the title Druid. However, I managed to keep my temper at all times and post as though I were talking to a student of Amergin White Knee (except where doing so would force me to curse you in the Name of An�)


A statement like that is incredibly worrying to hear coming from the mouth of one who claims to be a Druid. Free speech. Freedom to satire. Freedom to question one's self.
To do anything which, in any way shape or form, diminishes these freedoms is unnacceptable for anyone claiming the title of Druid.


It is also unbecoming of a Druid to assume malice where mistake is more likely. You are supposed to be wise, remember?


It suggests no such thing.


Qualify your sources please?
We can instantly discount anything from within the ADF branch as you deem your title applicable to "the ancient Celts and other Indo-European peoples" which is factually incorrect.


What, you mean that you're druids?


Appropriate?

Cite me the twelfth brehon law, the fifth line of the first stanza of the T�in B� Cuailinge, the Ancestry of Lugh Leamhgearm, the Descendants of Amergin, the Descendants of Eremon (first Ard R� of Ireland). Name the twelfth dynasty Ard R�. What is the difference between an Ard R� and a King? What is the role of the taoiseach?

Once you've done that, if you can satisfy me that your tin whistle skills match my own and that you can replicate any piece that I can play, then you can use the word "appropriate" to describe your claim to a title that your faith does not have any right to.

All of the above are laid down in the Leabhair Geabor when discussing druid challenging rites, both tongue in cheek and serious, the T�in B� Cualinge and the Kings Cycle. They are, however, outlined in a more easily reachable setting in the Matthews' "Encyclopedia of Celtic Wisdom" under, I believe, "The Wisdom of the Ancestors", but I'm open to correction.


No. The core books for Druidry would be "The Book of Invasions", "The Cycle of the Kings", "The Cattle Raid of Cooley" and "The Mabinogi". They all support my argument, what part of them supports yours?


Which is an innapropriate word.
In order to reconstruct the path of the druids, you would have to reconstruct the culture they serve. What you are doing is decontextualising.
I have had this argument, by the way, with Isaac Bonewit himself and we came to the conclusion that my arguments were founded.


What sources are you using for this study?


You use the word evolving there.
You don't really mean evolving.
Evolving means "changing to adapt to the environment" and as such you are implying, fairly implicitly, that there has been a steady change in the meaning of the word druid, as has happened with pagan.
This is not the case.
The Druids, due to the combined influences of both Maewyn Succat and later the Penal Laws, were wiped out.
Ceased to be.
No more evolution of the term because it doesn't mean anything.
Then, some centuries later, some people try to revive it.
That's not evolution.



The practice has changed naturally.
What you're talking about is changing a cultural role to that which it was not meant.


We know, from the source books, that the Druids spent ten years learning how to memorise. Nothing more nothing less. That's not the same for the greeks, therefore you are guilty of the fallacy of false comparison.


I call foul.
Cite any reference of Ogham being used to write anything other than land boundaries, births and deaths.


You should probably be grateful that I'm not challenging you as though you were a Druid. Your use of bad grammar, typos and words that are just wrong is incredibly undruidly


Preforming as council != Preforming as Druid.
False comparatives make bad fallacies for a "druid" to practice.


Indeed, they would work with whoever would listen.
They wouldn't TRAIN whoever would listen.


Which is offensive to anyone who's a Celt.


Quite well, according to the only person I know that I see has any right to the title (and it's a slim right at that).


Do you have any evidence to support this?


You can provide evidence for this bit as well.
I'm particularly interested in how you figure a tonal language like Chinese is related to, let's say, Irish.


These two statements are completely at ends with each other.
You can't state "No one knows the mother tongue" and then call something an early fragment of it.


For someone who's studied anthropology, you don't seem to realise that the term "Gaelic" is an adjective, not a noun.
For someone who's studied druidry, that is a capital offence.


So, in short, you completely disagree with everything the Celts (both Gael and Gaul) believed about where they came from?

Alright, being the eclectic pagan that I am, I propably have no right to say anything here, but I can't help it! I think you're all too focused on the "historical accuracy" of everything. Just about every source, every book ever written, is going to be baised. Some one once said to me, "The winners are the ones who write history." For example, if the Nazi/fascist party had won WWII, I'm sure they'd say something compleatly different about what happen that what we have written now. Not saying that one is better than the other, I'm just saying that they'd be different, because they're both baised. Anyway; we all know that the Druids passed everything down by word-of-mouth, and when the religion died out of the mainstream, no one was talking about it anymore. What's to say that there wasn't someone, somewhere secretly teaching someone the ways of the druid? I'm not saying that's true, and I have no sources to quote, but just think about it! How else would we have what little information we do have on the druids unless something like that were happening. Then again, there are reconstructionists, as Iryn said. I don't know, call it a conspiracy theory if you'd like, doesn't much matter to me.

As I said before, I'm a very eclectic person, so it's really hard for me to give a title to what I follow; especialy when it comes up in normal, everyday conversation. I've got stuff from everywhere! Native American Shamanism, Wicca, Greeko-Roman, I'm sure there are some Druadic beliefs thrown in there, and some philosophies of the easten religions, but I still have no title for it all. (Maybe I'll just call it Me-ism) It's obvious that you all have a set path for what you believe in. Meaning to say that its way more directed and focused than mine is, so why not give a fitting title to it? Of all the things that one could believe in and follow, say yours follows most closely to the druadic religion, why not call yourself a druid then instead of going off on a long boring tangent on how, though it follows as close as possible to it, you technically aren't Druid because of circumstances of the past. Neo-drid may be the best way to go if all these other people are getting their panties in a bunch about the technicalities of it all. Maybe that's just me, though.