Cannibal Druids?

« Fancy going here? | How the Celts and their Druids Really did it. »

Cannibal Druids?

by Old-Nick ^Pro @ 2008-08-19 – 12:51:53

There is a programme on TV called “Julius Caesar and the Druids: Revealed.”

Yep that “Revealed” bit makes me not want to watch it either, but the point of the programme seems to be that recent archaeological finds may back up Caesars claims that the druids were not all tree hugging Sun worshipers and in fact practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism.

Well, nobody knows for sure what they did as the inconsiderate buggers never wrote anything down – all knowledge regarding their religious rights was passed along orally, so no one actually knows. And later scholars thought that JC had just portrayed the Druids and ancient brits as savage barbarians to make his invasion seem more valid, when he probably did it to make a political name for himself. Rome was trading with Britain and getting gold and woollen cloth out of the deal so why go kick the crap out of them?

“Because they are savages and eat people that’s why! Lets kick their arses!”

Or summink.

Anyway, may be interesting to watch, but it is on channel 5 so could be a bit heavy on the badly acted “dramatisations”
Options:

11 Comments to Cannibal Druids?

Hide subcomments

- Shipscook
- 2008-08-19 @ 13:01:07
I'm interested to see what evedence is likely to be presented, given that its Ch 5 it will be fairly sensational, but whether its based on solid archealoguical fact or conjecture remains to be seen.

and don't think the Roman's were that civilised either just because they had superior technology, just look at the killing that went on in the arena in the name of sport.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- kendersrule ^Pro
- 2008-08-19 @ 13:01:38
just from the ad alone I can tell you that the dramatisations are VERY over done
AND they had the human meat inna wooden bowl ffs! Surely your sacrificial man-meat would be served up on something shiny! Ritual eating of stuff generally involves er rituals!
Bloody 'modern' historians, twats.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- smitty1247
- 2008-08-19 @ 13:24:44
They are not going to get very skilled actors to play savages.

I do wish they would though. Would make history more enjoyable.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- QueeneMab
- 2008-08-19 @ 19:40:36
Erm not sure I can swallow the cannabalism Ahem!

Seriously though, it will be interesting to see the evidence. I find it unlikely that there is sufficient evidence to support this, but defleshing bones of the dead in a variety of ways prior to burying the bones of your best beloved under the floor to keep their spirit with you was not unknown in the ancient world was it?

X
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- enchantress-of-the-wood
- http://www.myspace.com/bashfull_brunette
- 2008-08-19 @ 21:46:40
I watch a bit of it as I missed the first half as i was having tea.

Anyway from what I saw it was a complete an absolute load of rubbish. The archaeologists and scientists would not know what the druids believed as they did not look in the right places. As a Wiccan I feel very strongly about the Druid religion as Gardnarian wicca is a for of Neo-Pagnism based upon it. For starters there should have done their research on Paganism. The should have read books by the likes of the old Occultists and historians such as Geral Gardner, Doreen Valiente, Raymond Buckland, Scott Cunningham, and DR Ronnald Hutton. Only Raymond Buckland and Ronnald Hutton of these are now alive. Raymond Buckland was one of the originals at the time of Wicca. Gerald Gardner founding "Gardnarian Wicca", Raymond Buckland was by his side and brought the new aged religion to america.

Also if they had any experiance or knowledge of the pagan belief systems they could have contacted a member of "The Pagan Federation" or "The Druid Order" to interview. Unlike what the documentary suggests there are modern day Druids who have revived the faith.

Also the druids were not cannibles.
Not all but most of the were vegitarians. They were against cannibalism as they respected nature and humans being part of it.

However seeing they were in primative times(the original druids that is)the Druid Priest/Priestess would have killed those who offended the laws, even in the times of the anglo saxons the king would look upon the Druid/Wicce for help regarding herbal law, magick, divination,.So as Raymond Buckland quotes in his book "BUCKLAND'S COMPLETE BOOK OF WITCHCRAFT"
"They had to be doctor,lawyer, magician and priest."

Funnily enogh the page previous also quotes.

"They would bury their deceaced with full clothing and ornaments and would sprinkle them witch red ochre (hematite, or iron peroxide), to give back the appearance of life. Frequently, family members would be buries beneath the hearth so that they might remain close to the family. A man would be burried with his weapons; perhaps even his dog-all that he might need in the afterlife."

Sorry if I've rattled on a bit here and some people may already be aware of it anyway. But what I saw of that program made me somewhat Anxious.

Blessed Be )O(
Sophia
xoxox
- - Old-Nick ^Pro
  - 2008-08-19 @ 21:53:42
  I have that tripple goddess sign tattooed on my left arm!
  
  Thanks for sharing.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- - QueeneMab
  - 2008-08-19 @ 21:54:44
  Some good points here, and nothing new, but I am not sure that modern pagan religion has survived the centruries intact and that we haven't put our own more PC spin onto it. I think Druids in those days were altogether more warlike and defended their territory fiercely. I think any 2000 year old religion would have been very unpalatable to the likes of Gardner. Much of organised neo pagansim seems to have its roots Frazer's Golden Bough as far as I can see.
  
  I seem to recall the Irish legends referring to structures made of human bones (of slain enemies) so it is not surprising that some such structures appear to have been uncovered.
  
  Not sure why the programme made you anxious though Sophia?
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- enchantress-of-the-wood
- http://www.myspace.com/bashfull_brunette
- 2008-08-19 @ 22:28:59
As I said I did only see part of the program. My point being is that people that do not have a broad understanding of Paganism will now think of me and other pagans as evil if they've watched this program. Although they did uncover remains of bodies, they could not give a strait answer as they were using a load of if's and maybies.

I agree with you "QueeneMab" that it could not survive as it was then without written word. But they made out as if the Whole Druid religion at the end was a dead religion in their conclusuion. And they still should have done more reasearch to back their points up.

Oh and about that tatoo "Old-Nick" that sounds so cool. Hopefully when I can get one when I'm old enough I would like either a Triquetra or a Pentacle with a trible pattern around it at my lower back, lining up with my hips in a kind on triangular shape. =]

Blessed Be )O(
Sophia
xoxox
- - Shipscook
  - 2008-08-20 @ 13:25:27
  In many ways the programme reminded me of those shows where people go hunting for Big foot but never find one. None of the evidence shown proved that the druids practiced either human sacrifice of cannibalism as Ceasar suggested and some of it was very flimsy indeed.
  - - enchantress-of-the-wood
    - http://www.myspace.com/bashfull_brunette
    - 2008-08-20 @ 21:42:25
    I agree. But then most of the REVEALED documentaries were like that. I watched the one about Anastasia and it was interesting to start with but when they found the evidence, my reaction was.. "is that it?". to be honest the REVEALED shows were a complete waste of drawn-out time.
    
    If they want to do a program about Paganism they should be asking Pagans, not Scientists who in any sense would try and prove against the pagan ways anyway. And Archeologists only look at the history of whatthey find. not of the whole generalised subject.
    
    Blessed Be )O(
    Sophia
    xoxox
    - - Shipscook
      - 2008-08-21 @ 14:13:25
      Such is the problem with sensationalist TV shows, where the evidence is selected on the basis of supporting one particular argument.
      
      See my blog for my more in depth opinion on the show
      - Reply to comment
      - Permalink