The Historical Druids

It has come to my attention a couple of times recently that almost everything we know about the historical Druids can be contested. We have, dare I say, absolutely no solid evidence to support any given fact about Druids we care to bring up. Classical texts were always secondhand accounts, like Caesar's. Archaeology rarely speaks in fact and it's hard to know if anything found related to Druids absolutely. Mythologies were recorded long after Christianity became dominant with changes and reinterpretations inevitably occurring. Nothing offers solid fact, and so we are left with our fancies and fantasies to base our tradition on. I read this afternoon a brilliant quote about it from Ronald Hutton in his book "Blood and Mistletoe - The history of the Druids in Britain" (2009, p. 48):

"So this is how an Iron Age Druid is fashioned: from selected parts of Greek, Roman, Irish or Welsh texts usually mixed with archaeological data. The process of selection made to compose the result is more or less an arbitrary one, determined by the instincts, attitudes, context and loyalties of the person engaged in it. Virtually none of the ingredients employed have the status of solid material, judged by any objective standards of textual or material evidence, and the little that has that status is not sufficient to produce a detailed or finished result. This is the case today, as has been suggested by the survey made above of recent publications, but it has been equally true ever since the inhabitants of Britain began wanting to have Druids in their thought-world again about half a millennium ago. The manner in which these ancient and medieval images of them have been put to use is therefore a perfect case study of the way in which the modern British have liked to think and feel: about humanity, nationhood, religion, morality and the cosmos. The raw materials for the construction of ancient Druids, so frustrating for a pre-historian or ancient historian, have resulted in a wonderful subject for the student of modernity."

He is referring to the fact that the Druids have been imagined in many different ways, generally depending on the agenda of the person doing the research. Depending on which parts of the sources we employ, we can get an image of the ancient Druid we are looking for. Druids are not clearly defined in history, but have been re-created in people's imaginations again and again for centuries.

What does this mean for us then? Does our basing our spirituality on an imagined past make our practice and belief system any less valid? Is longevity of ideas and their clear reproduction over time what makes a spiritual practice worthwhile or can we create systems today out of our imaginations that have validity?

I am really interested in discussing this with anyone who takes a more "reconstructionist" path, should they be out there in the DDU forum, but I'm also interested in exploring this in the other direction... to what extent can we "make it up"? Where does the fantasy become unacceptable? How do archetypes come into this? How does our imagined Druid find authenticity in our eyes and how can that be compromised?

Thank you for that post, Julie. It gave a lot of 'food for thought'.

As a Romanichal I have read much on what is a 'Gypsy'. I'm fair/ruddy complexioned, auburnish hair - a far cry from the historical research that TODAY finds my ancestor were Rajputs and that the Romani Chib - Romany Language - is Indian based. My family, in many ways, have cultural traits of the modern Romanichal but not like say my dad's great grand parents who arrived in England via Romania nor like my Mum's great grandparents who came from the Welsh Kalle Gypsies.

Why I've started my 'spiel' with this is because regardless of my Rajput beginnings - a supposedly lower caste hindu people who kept themselves apart from the Gadzji (non Romani people), had a spiritual belief of their own, and still speak a variety of romani languages - when I read and have met Gypsies from different parts of the world I recognise a part of my being in those people though they may be vastly different in their outward appearance ie Slavic Gypsy, Turkish Gypsy, British Gypsy. There seems to be an invisible thread that runs between us all and though we may not initially identify as Gypsies because we were integrated into society in order to be accepted we are recognising in each other traces of a commonality that we seem to recall not only from older family members but also from some deep memory in our 'Zi', our 'soul'.

I've found the same on this path. I read, hear, or see something and my soul says 'yes! that's me!'. Then I look around me at various 'meets' and wonder how so many different people have the same inner knowledge as I. What is it that made them say 'yes'?

The Romany Zi - 'soul' - to me resembles that spiral that is mythologically spoken of which comes from the cauldron Ceridwen.

Druidry like Romanies is, I believe, like the seasons... it changes. It has its Springs, its Summers, its Autumns, its Winters. It is born, it lives, it dies, only to be reborn, in a guise similar to the primal season but ever renewing.

I may not live in a vardo (caravan) like some of today's Romanichals, and my ancestors would be astounded at how I look and live but I am every bit a Gypsy regardless of the perspective of an Author, an Anthropologist or whoever who doesnt have the thread of Druidry within their Being.

The Chovihani is a Romany person who has the same kind of characteristics that is spoken of when Druids are discussed. They are the 'Wise Ones'... 'Shamans'... 'Healers'... 'Counsellors'... 'Judges of Justice'. All societies have this type of person. Only in modern western society have we shunned the Chovihani/Druids and cast them aside as an outdated superstitious weird mob.

Opre Chovihani!! (Arise Wise Ones!!)

Thanks for your post Uanie. I think there is definitely something very important in that moment of recognition of ourselves in others. When we meet like-minded people in Druidry who also call themselves Druids it makes us feel that we are on the right track, that others have been able to connect with this path because they see the same ideals, they are striving towards the same ways of being as we are. But what about when we find people that call themselves Druids as we do, but have very different ideas about what that means? I am certainly not one to support dogmatic ideals about the nature of Druidry as I feel that we have room for a lot of diversity, and I like a good discussion over difference of opinion :-), but what would be taking it too far??

As an example, I came across a person once who claimed to be a Druid and also claimed that the runes were tools of the Druids. Now... I was resistant to this as the runes are part of Scandinavian and Germanic tradition... not Celtic. If we were to pick an alphabet to associate with Druids, surely it would be the Ogham... But how can I make such a claim knowing full well that the Druids are an imagined identity and their use of even the ogham is contestable? I know deep down that I want to stand firm on this. For some reason I want the ogham to be associated with Druids and be able to argue that point, but there is nothing to grasp onto. Their association with ogham is as fantastical as their wearing long robes or performing rituals in stone circles - two other things i would like to be able to argue for but have no factual standing.

It's funny. What I feel so strongly as being Druidic, and what many others also share in, is not historically accurate. And I know this, So on what authority is my Druid archetype created? Can we argue for a modern Druid? Possibly this is our only option... but then does that make us dogmatic? I find myself going round in circles...

Am I making any sense? It's hard for me to explain this.

I hear you loud and clear, Julie. Smile.

Please excuse this email as it's going to be long... but I have the 'talking stick' so am gonna use it. LOL.

The validity of ANY group or belief system today could be questioned because of conflicting historical sources. NO group alive can claim they have THE Truth or still practice the rituals or culture of their founders - though they like to believe that. Does it change their faith in that system though?

I get you when you ask re meeting others who say they are Druids yet different ideas about what this means. For me I guess it comes down to What do YOU believe makes you a Druid?

The use of the word Gypsy has both negative and mystical definitions. True Gypsies around the world are being discriminated against by land Laws and vilified by other cultures. Romania, the Balkans, Italy, and France have taken away their citizenship and treat them as modern day suitors for Concentration Camps. On the other hand we in the west see 'Gypsy' added to the name of every other Tarot reader, or New Age practicing Witch professing to have had a 'Romany Gypsy' grandmother which is why they are psychic. I mentioned the Chovihani in my last post. Not all Romany were/are Chovihani and just because you're a Romany doesnt make you Psychic. Some Romany women in the past 'dukkered' to make a living i.e. they read palms. Some of them WERE real others not. It makes my blood boil when I read the back of a book on anything psychic or New Age that the Author's grandmother was a Gypsy implying that's WHY the Author is Psychic etc. I had a Tarot reading done by a 'Gypsy' at the Sydney Body Mind and Spirit Festival saying she was a 4th generation Gypsy. When I asked her a question in Romany she laughed and said 'No Gypsy in the world speaks that language anymore. You just learnt it on the internet and you cant believe everything on the net'. She obviously knew nothing about the World Romany Union, or other Associations run by Rromani around the world nor anything about Romanis in general. BUT who am I to question her?

I decided to let people like her continue being mystical - and deluded. Tho it hurts that she is taking advantage of others by selling her trade via the use of her 'Gypsy' blood.

I tell others I'm a Romanichal as a means to identify my people and not as a way of saying because I'm a Gypsy I am psychic. (tho I DO happen to be a Romanichal who reads Tarot. LOL)

I take things that I learn from others identifying as Druids whether it be people I meet or people I read about. I dont need Ogham, Runes, nor any other ancient script to write to anyone or practice as a Druid since I can express the things I want to say in 'roman' letters and form words. Or draw. I believe that Ogham and Runes serve(d) a time and purpose just like the Tibetan Thangkas tell stories to the initiated buddhist. I can learn about these meanings from books - I no longer need to attach myself to teacher who will tell me what they mean.

I can take the common thread of all that I read and hear and build a picture of Druidry and say 'that's me'. I then look at what is the reason for me being a Druid. Why am I different to a non Druid? What am I expected to do as a Druid to better myself and help others?

This earth and these seasons speak to me. I need to learn to listen. Many things of the Northern lands I cant find in Australia so it's THIS land I need to listen to. You gave a PERFECT example by using Australian Trees and giving a meaning to them. We dont need to ascribe an Ogham or Rune. I am a person who moved here from the North but living in a Southern environment which has meaning to me now.

As a Druid do I need ritual to encourage change or do I USE ritual to give thanks and/or re-enact a mythological event of years ago? I believe we should try it all.

Like you, I love these discussions.