Druids committed human sacrifice, cannibalism?

[Aurelia]

According to Roman accounts, Druids were high-ranking priests of the Celts who practised human sacrifice. Pliny the Elder even suggests that the Celts were not averse to ritual cannibalism. Fact or Roman propaganda?

 

Recent finds seem to confirm these accounts, according to Secrets of the Druids, a new documentary airing this Sunday on the US National Geographic Channel. For more information, go to: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...annibalism.html

[Ursus]

Excellent find!

 

Voluntary human sacrifice would not be out of the question. The idea that a young aristocrat would give his life to invoke the gods for the good of the tribe seems to fit in well with those beliefs.

 

I had never heard of the cannibalism aspect, though. Interesting.

[Aurelia]

Excellent find!

 

Voluntary human sacrifice would not be out of the question. The idea that a young aristocrat would give his life to invoke the gods for the good of the tribe seems to fit in well with those beliefs.

 

I had never heard of the cannibalism aspect, though. Interesting.

 

I wish I could watch this tonight but I think, as usual, people in the US get to see it first.

 

I knew about Druids reportedly practising human sacrifice but was also intrigued about the cannibalism part. I would be ready to accept the idea of eating one's enemies as a way of absorbing their physical and/or spiritual strength (some native American tribes in Central and South America were said to practise ritual cannibalism when Spanish and Portuguese explorers arrived there in the XVI century). Don't know if I believe the theory that cannibalism amongst Celts in Britain around 1 AD was a result of increasing hunger and desperation though.

[Ursus]

Don't know if I believe the theory that cannibalism amongst Celts in Britain around 1 AD was a result of increasing hunger and desperation though.

 

 

Indeed. Eating the sacrificial meat as a way of forming bonds between the deities and community of worshippers is standard practice throughout paganism .... so if a young, strong aristocratic warrior is ritually blessed and then killed in the name of the gods, perhaps the tribal warriors thought they would be so strengthened by partaking of his flesh.

[caldrail]

It was my understanding that druids sacrificed criminals, but I'm prepared to put straight on that.

 

The idea that druids ate flesh as a normal practice in order to gain their enemies strength runs counter to the accepted head hunting they used for that purpose. The possession of an enemies head was supposed to impart their manly qualities. There was also some symbolism fromskulls connected with it but off hand I don't remember the details. I'll do some digging on this - There's some literature to hand.

Edited March 23, 2009 by caldrail

[Nephele]

I believe the Druids went even further than merely sacrificing criminals, as they were strict authoritarians (if Caesar's Gallic Wars is to be believed) and would also happily sacrifice dissenters.

 

But then, defying a Druid's authority would have been considered a criminal act anyway, thereby making all dissenters criminals, I suppose.

 

The Druids weren't above sacrificing the innocent, either, as (again, according to Caesar) human victims would be offered up to the gods in sacrifice as a substitution for the lives of those who might be going into battle and likely to lose their own lives (if not for having first appeased the gods with someone else's life). If all the criminals had previously been used up, then slaves would make handy sacrifices in such a case.

 

I hadn't heard of the Druid cannibalism thing before, either, and I wish the author of that piece had given a more specific reference to Pliny. All I could find in Pliny's Natural History was Pliny's mention of the Scythians as being a people who ate human flesh (Book 6, Chapter 20). I could have missed the Druid/cannibalism bit, though.

 

-- Nephele

[caldrail]

I can't find the book I wanted to unfortunately - a hazard with libraries.

 

However... With human societies (this is especially true of warrior cultures) there is a connection drawn between a spiritual quality and a specific part of the human body, such as the heart, or the brain. The flesh is mundane, usable only for sustenance if your society is so inclined. The bloody mass sacrifices of the amerindians focus on the heart. Japanese culture focuses on the abdomen as the center of the man, and the celts saw the head as the focus of a mans virtue.

 

Not suprisingly then in celtic societies there was the cult of the severed head. The act of taking a head demonstrates your mastery over your enemy in a very final way, and to own a head was to own its former courage. A celt would boast that he had been offered a great sum to sell his heads but refused.

 

The symbolism for the celts was very important. Their spiritual beliefs were based around this kind of thing and it survives in the earliest versions of the arthurian mythos, celtic tales passed down from before the Roman period.

 

The cauldron is another important icon. I don't understand what the significance was exactly, but the cauldron was some sort of recepticle for spiritual power. Add to that the various properties associated with plants and animals, the 'fairy tale' menagerie of spirit creatures, and you get some idea of the richness of their beliefs.

 

Now since people aren't always so immersed in religion as others, I've no doubt that some individuals paid lip service to these beliefs. The point was though that the severed head demonstrated your prowess in battle. You had cut the mans head from his shoulders and therefore the ownership of it gave you a very real measure of status. A currency of severed heads in other words.

[Aurelia]

The idea that druids ate flesh as a normal practice in order to gain their enemies strength runs counter to the accepted head hunting they used for that purpose. The possession of an enemies head was supposed to impart their manly qualities. There was also some symbolism fromskulls connected with it but off hand I don't remember the details. I'll do some digging on this - There's some literature to hand.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't headhunting more widespread amongst Celtic tribes in Gaul? Or was it also practised in Britain? I know that there is mention of headhunting in old Irish mythology but I would be interested in finding out whether cutting off and keeping an enemy's head was customary practice throughout the so-called Celtic world. Perhaps ritual cannibalism (if it did indeed exist) was practised by some tribes and not others.

[caldrail]

Headhunting was common to celtic tribes though I agree some tribes may have placed more importance on it. As regards cannabalism, a useful analogy comes fromNew Guinea. There, it was traditional to hunt and eat people from other tribes. But it was only eating the brain that gave you your enemies virtue.

 

The cult of the severed head was pre-roman however, and I don't see any resurgence in that practice regardless of celtic legends recounting such activity.

[Aurelia]

The cult of the severed head was pre-roman however, and I don't see any resurgence in that practice regardless of celtic legends recounting such activity.

 

Oh yes, I'm sure celtic legends go back a long way, probably as far back as the Iron Age. Like you said, pre-Roman.

[Ursus]

I can almost ascertain that what he wrote to motivate his people to fight the Celts was without proof for Im sure that he made these statements with never have seeing a Celt in his life and probably with no witness bearing the account of such said sacrifices.

 

 

Caesar never saw a Celt in his life? Even when he was covered in their blood after numerous battles?

[Northern Neil]

I think what I was trying to say got misconstrued in my concept so Im going to present my case a bit different.

Welcome aboard, Gloryforixseal, although your opening statement suggests you have been here before...

 

One must open their mind first to the possibility that maybe we, in the past, were as smart as we are now. We now know that killing is murder. It would seem to make sense that the druids and Celts of those years also thought the same. Which is why they executed murderers. Not innocents and I doubt any man would go willing to be killed to appease any god or goddess. Any sane man.

 

I think most people with more than a passing interest in history understand that humans from as far back as 100'000 BCE were just as smart as us. I do not believe, however, that they believed that killing innocents was murder. As can be seen by the actions of people today, human beings have a tendency to kill people they believe are not like themselves, and feel totally justified. Whether one is a 1940's Nazi, a religious fundamentalist or a Celt raiding a neighbouring village, the sentiment is much the same - ones victims are not quite the same as you, and therefore you can be entirely justified in killing them.

 

To this day, a significant minority of people believe that to take their own life - and several others at the same time - will not only appease their god but give them everlasting rewards. If there are people like that in this enlightened age, I am pretty sure that in ancient Celtic society (whatever that definition means) there was a substantially higher proportion of them. Especially when one considers that in modern celtic society some people still murder individuals they have never met, for belonging to the wrong subdivision of the same religion.

 

By suggesting that the ancient Celts committed such atrocities is also suggesting that they were ignorant and didnt value human life. I argue differently. I think human life was their highest value.

 

I think they were far from ignorant - ruthless is the word I would use. I agree with you that human life was their highest value - but did their concept of humanity extend to people outside their immediate tribal group?

[Formosus Viriustus]

Julius Caesar, who led the first Roman landing in 55 B.C., said the native Celts "believe that the gods delight in the slaughter of prisoners and criminals, and when the supply of captives runs short, they sacrifice even the innocent."

 

This statement, I think, refers to the continental Gauls, not to the Brits. Caesar did establish a beach head in Britain for a short time

[marcus silanus]

I think what I was trying to say got misconstrued in my concept so Im going to present my case a bit different.

 

Archeologists have not found any sites in Celtic architect that would serve as a human sacrificial place. They cannot find any proof that the Ancient Celts performed any such sacrifices. Now they have found places that would be used for the execution of criminals which is similar to what we do today. We execute murderers even today with the "death row." But in as far as accordance with the concept of human sacrifice, no evidence has been found to suggest that Julius Ceasar was right. I can almost ascertain that what he wrote to motivate his people to fight the Celts was without proof for Im sure that he made these statements with never have seeing a Celt in his life and probably with no witness bearing the account of such said sacrifices.

 

There is direct evidence of Celtic human sacrifice at least in the 'bog bodies' such as Lindow Man and less famously Worsley Man. Analysis of both finds certainly establishes that they were ritually killed, the weight of evidence pointing towards religious sacrifice.

 

These finds are totally divorced from Roman views of Celtic culture. Although it is quite right to draw attention to the bloodthirsty or brutal practices of other cultures, I think it would be wrong to idealise the Celts because it suited the Romans to focus on their darker side.

[Formosus Viriustus]

Gladiator fights were in their origin religious human sacrifices, I believe. The purpose being to give a fallen hero or king some attendants in the underworld.

So, in that sense both the Romans and the Gauls practiced human sacrifice.

 

However, I think that this fate was almost exclusively reserved for criminals, prisoners of wars, slaves, hostages. And it seldom was on a voluntary basis. Unless you could win your freedom maybe.

By Caesar's time most gladiator fights in Rome were not fights to the death. Thus you had voluntary, professional gladiators. For them death in the arena was a serious occupational risk but not a certain fate.

 

Regarding the Lindow Man :

 

"According to Brothwell, it is one of the most complex examples of "overkill" in a bog body, and possibly has ritual meaning as it was "extravagant" for a straightforward murder."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindow_man

 

How does this make this a 'religious human sacrifice' ? I think that is pure speculation.

 

Everybody should know that in a significant number of ordinary murders there is 'extravagant overkill'. I'm fairly sure that our real life present day CSI heroes more than once run into cases of 'extravagant overkill' that will make Lindow Man's case seem pretty ordinary. So Lindow Man might very well have been the victim of an ordinary murder. Or a vendetta or honour killing. Those often have a ritual character.

 

Or very likely he was a criminal who was executed. Many if not most executions at the time were pretty 'overkill'. So why should this in this case point to a religious sacrifice ? Was every crucufixion a religious sacrifice ? And there is no contradiction about it being an execution and it being ritual. Executions are very often performed according to a ritual.

 

There is no contradiction even for me between it being an execution of a criminal and there being some kind of 'ritual sacrifice' of the body to some god or gods afterwards. That doesn't have to mean that the purpose of the killing was to please or placate the gods. You can attach some spiritual meaning to the fact that 'here on earth' justice has been done. If your gods are 'just', and they usually are, they will be pleased with that. The Romans themselves pretty much thought like that, I think, and many people today still do.

 

When speaking about 'religious human sacrifice' we usually think about such practices as were rather common in pre-Columbian America. Clearly performed in the context of elaborate religious rituals. Often large-scale on unwilling victims but also on a smaller scale on willing victims, it seems.

There is more than abundant evidence for the first and quite some for the second as well, though 'willingness' might also be a very elastic concept.

I see no evidence at all for anything comparable in Gaul or Britain around Caesar's time.

 

From what evidence there is, there is probably no way you can prove that Lindow Man was not the victim