| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| In the Avebury landscape the proximity between the Long Barrows and the later monuments is very close, suggesting the continuation of the area as a religious centre for thousands of years. |
Forgive me for asking but what is the evidence that any of these things were religious at all?
| We can, of course, never know for sure but IF you accept that the Druids were the priestly caste of celtic speakers (Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish?) then to impose their authority over such a wide geographical area they must have had a strong military arm to do the domination bit. |
There is a general case for Celtic military domination over both Britain and France. Any coastal minority (as the Celtic-speakers are in Britain and France) will disappear by ordinary majority language cline-shift unless they are militarily dominant. The presumption must be therefore that
a) the Celts were dominant and expanded from the time of their arrival to the Roman occupation (say, first two millennia BC)
b) pretty much steadyish during the period of foreign occupation (first millennia AD)
c) started disappearing when the majority (English-, French-speakers) became dominant (second millennia AD).
| I can accept celtic Druids in celtic Britain and Brittany but what about English speaking Britain and French speaking France. Do we have evidence for a celtic military hierarchy there? |
No evidence either way except as above. It's a fact though that both France and Britain had strong Celtic areas that survived for a thousand years of foreign occupation. I can't believe this would be possible unless the Celts had some kind of cultural superiority.
| Or is it wiser to assume that the Druids were more like a roving band of missionaries converting the locals with the word rather than the sword? |
It would be unusual to have a dominant religious cult that didn't have secular backing. On the other hand they may not have been religious at all. Which alters everything.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| Forgive me for asking but what is the evidence that any of these things were religious at all? |
This depends on what you mean by religious. As we have no writing from the period we can only surmise. The burying of the dead in elaborate tombs (West Kennet, Maes Howe, Newgrange etc.) could imply the veneration of the dead and the belief in an afterlife.
| It would be unusual to have a dominant religious cult that didn't have secular backing. On the other hand they may not have been religious at all. Which alters everything. |
Caesar tells us the Druids were a religious cult, the celtic priesthood. That's all we have to go off source wise.
Generally, I think it's safe to say that a divine right of kings and the legitimising priesthood is a typical Ancient world view. Religion is dominant in every Ancient culture. Why not in Neolithic or celtic Britain?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| This depends on what you mean by religious. As we have no writing from the period we can only surmise. The burying of the dead in elaborate tombs (West Kennet, Maes Howe, Newgrange etc.) could imply the veneration of the dead and the belief in an afterlife. |
On a point of information, do we really know that any of these were actually tombs? I ask because I often read that these tombs (like the Great Pyramid) contain no bodies. But even so, I think you would have to agree that there is little in megalithia as a whole to suggest they were religious. AE-ists routinely claim that pre-historians use 'sacred', 'ritual', 'religious' etc whenever they mean but don't like to say "Don't know".
| Caesar tells us the Druids were a religious cult, the celtic priesthood. That's all we have to go off source wise. |
Religion and science were often inextricably intertwined in the Ancient world. However we do have later 'evidence' (meaning AE hypotheses) that the Druids used religion to cover their tracks.
| Generally, I think it's safe to say that a divine right of kings and the legitimising priesthood is a typical Ancient world view. Religion is dominant in every Ancient culture. Why not in Neolithic or celtic Britain? |
Quite so and it is for this reason that Druids always used the priesthood to cover their tracks. It is interesting that the only ancient culture which permitted (however reluctantly) atheism was Classical Greece and the only modern one is the Western European model. Both saw science catapulted to the forefront of human endeavour.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| On a point of information, do we really know that any of these were actually tombs? I ask because I often read that these tombs (like the Great Pyramid) contain no bodies. |
Really? I have only read of one example in the UK where no human bones have been found. On average, throughout the country, each long barrow contained the remains of six people. The earliest examples contained far more. By the time the tradition changed into round barrows we are looking at only one or two bodies. They were clearly to do with death although I also think it is obvious that they were to do with far more than mortuary rites.
This whole business of the Druids using religion as a cover makes me chuckle, though I do accept that the spirit of inquiry launched by genuine i.e. direct religious experience can be the same as the scientific. Newton, for example, was both profoundly religious and knew his force from mass. If we take science as being evidence based and religion as being faith based then the Druids, as the bearers of the ancient shamanic traditions and technologies, probably had direct evidence for the reality of their religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Duncan wrote: | | If we take science as being evidence based and religion as being faith based.... |
This premise is not sound. Were not the Pythagoreans 'religious?'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| If we take science as being evidence based and religion as being faith based.... |
This premise is not sound. Were not the Pythagoreans 'religious?' |
Ish, you've totally missed the gist of what I said. Direct religious experience, of the kind associated with shamans and possibly Druids, is evidence. Much of contemporary religion is based upon belief only in what those who have had the experience tell them. You know the story, The Bible says this, The Koran says that...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Duncan wrote: | | Ish, you've totally missed the gist of what I said. Direct religious experience, of the kind associated with shamans and possibly Druids, is evidence. |
So Druids and Shamans were scientists?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| So Druids and Shamans were scientists? |
So little is known about the Druids but they were probably the successors to the shamans in Britain. Shamans, about whom we know plenty, are the scientists of the sacred, technologists of the transcendent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Duncan wrote: | | So little is known about the Druids but they were probably the successors to the shamans in Britain. Shamans, about whom we know plenty, are the scientists of the sacred, technologists of the transcendent. |
Well I can't say as I support the distinction. Looks to me that you're just saying, "These are the religious people I like (dead ones) and these are the religious people I don't like (living ones)." But...this is not a matter for rational discourse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| Well I can't say as I support the distinction. Looks to me that you're just saying, "These are the religious people I like (dead ones) and these are the religious people I don't like (living ones)." But...this is not a matter for rational discourse. |
What I mean is that religious experience has to be based on a genuine personal and transformative experience NOT any kind of hand-me-down scripture. Shamans are the visionaries who became the Druids of a later age.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I side with Ishmael on this one. Do we have any evidence that Druids were religious? I find it difficult to believe that any religion would demand of its 'priests' that they spend twenty years memorising rituals. Though I agree that all religions demand of their priests that they spend a few years memorising stuff (or learning a foreign language so they can read it from a book). But science, unwritten science, would demand whatever it takes...
Duncan, you'll have to stand up your argument that Druids were latter day shamans. Though you'd also have to accept that shamans would be the nearest thing to a scientist in a primitive culture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| Do we have any evidence that Druids were religious? I find it difficult to believe that any religion would demand of its 'priests' that they spend twenty years memorising rituals. |
Well, that's Caesar's view. They spent all that time learning their native wisdom. He also says they were the celtic priesthood. This is a quintessentially religious function. It is also clear, if we stick with my shamanic example, that they were healers, teachers, magicians etc. No wonder it took twenty years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Religion and science are entwined to the extent that they both purport to answer questions that human beings can't answer from their own direct experience. It follows from this that there will either be competition between the two or -- whenever one is dominant -- that one group will disguise themselves as the other.
That's the interesting thing about Fundamentalism vs Darwinism. The Fundamentalists are claiming to be scientists ("We know the origins of life") whilst the Darwinists are claiming to be religious ("We know whether God exists"). But this stepover has a long history. Not only was Newton a confirmed religious nutter but many of the early twentieth century scientific giants were Spiritualists.
A similar question I came across recently is whether a historian can be a Christian (or in this case, a Muslim). Historians are trained to be able to recognise whether an event happened in the past or whether it didn't (or more properly when the evidence is not sufficient to claim it did happen). But say to a Christian or a Muslim historian, "OK, so would you evaluate whether an angel impregnated a Jewish woman in nought AD/whether an angel dictated the Koran to Mohammed in six-whatever AD?" And stand back while the dervishes whirl.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| It is also clear, if we stick with my shamanic example, that they were healers, teachers, magicians etc. No wonder it took twenty years. |
That's not quite right, is it, Duncan? If you are a real healer, teacher (even magician) it can take an inordinate amount of training because you are having to learn real things. But being a religious healer/teacher/magician takes just the time to learn rote formulae.. The difference is that religions need large numbers of priests - one per thousand souls or whatever - so the whole thing has to be organised on the basis of "Lookee here, boys and girls, a career opportunity." We're looking at five years max.
Druids appear to be something quite other. Shamans too perhaps.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Druids appear to be something quite other. Shamans too perhaps |
There's just no clear-cut line between science and religion. There never has been and there isn't one now. The Pythagoreans were clearly a priesthood of sorts, yet they were equally clearly scientists. Gregor Mendel and Newton, these were something of the same. Their scientific work actually stemmed from their mystical appreciation for the universe.
Had they not responded to the universe with a sense of awe -- had they not believed that their experiments and investigations would bring them closer to the divine -- it's doubtful they would have achieved what they did.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
