Part One
FROM THE BOOK "THE DRUIDS"
by
Peter Ellis
But before we leave the subject of rites and rituals, we should
deal with the most controversial rite ascribed to the Druids: the
practice of human sacrifice. The question of whether the Celts
did or did not practice such sacrifice has been the subject of
much controversy between scholars during the last two centuries.
A Greek poet named Sopater of Paphos, in Cyprus, born in the time
of Alexander the Great and living to mention Ptolemy 11
(285-246 BC), writes that the Celts of Galatia sacrificed their
prisoners to their gods by burning them after a victory. This
reference survives in the work of the Greek author Athenaeus of
Naucratis (c.AD 200). Diodorus Siculus, the Greek historian
(c.60-30 BC) also speaks of the execution of prisoners by the
Galatian Celts:
The Galatian general returning from the pursuit, assembled
the prisoners and carried out an act of extreme barbarity
and utter insolence. He took those who were most handsome
and in the strength and flower of their youth, and having
crowned them, sacrificed them to the gods, if indeed any god
could receive such offerings.
These references to the slaughter of prisoners have to be treated
for what they are. There is not an army in the world in any
historical epoch who has not been guilty of slaughtering
prisoners after a battle. We must also remember the high degree
of hysteria with which the Greeks regarded the Galatian Celts,
especially after the invasion of Greece in 290 BC. Pausanias,
(fl. CAD 160), the Greek traveller and geographer, goes on record
to accuse the Celts of practising cannibalism after their defeat
of the Greek armies of Athens, Pocis, Aetiolia and Thessaly. He
further implies that this was normal Celtic behaviour. According
to Caesar, and he is always a questionable source, during the
Roman siege of the Celtic hill fort of Alesia (Alias Ste Reine),
a Celtic chieftain, Critognatus, proposed that the starving city
hold out by eating its own dead. This was an extreme resort. The
Celts were eventually forced to surrender. Alesia and
Vercingetorix, their king, was taken as captive to Rome, to be
sacrificed to the Roman god of war, Mars.
Thus we have to be careful as to what is propaganda and what is
truth. So far as the Celts eating the Greeks during their
invasion in 290 BC, the story falls into the 'bogeymen'
propaganda that is always spread in such circumstances, such as
the fabricated stories of German atrocities in Belgium at the
opening of the Great War in 1914. As Rudyard Kipling, a leading
disseminator of the stories, cynically told an audience of
Scottish university students after the war, the first use that
the first man made of the gift of language was to lie about his
neighbours.
The first contentious mention of human sacrifice as a deliberate
act of religious worship by the Celts is made by Caesar and
Strabo, apparently quoting Poseidons as a source.
According to Strabo: 'They used to strike a man, whom they had
devoted to death, in the back with a knife, and then divine from
his death-throes; but they did not sacrifice without a Druid.' He
goes further:
We are told of still other kinds of sacrifices; for example,
they would shoot victims to death with arrows, or impale
them in temples, or, having built a colossus of straw and
wood, throw into the colossus cattle and animals of all
sorts and human beings, and then make a burnt offering of
the whole thing.
Even if we accept this at face value, there is nothing to suggest
that the Druids were responsible for the sacrifice, only that
their presence during it was essential. It has been pointed out
that Strabo gives the Druids the position as judges and it can be
argued that their presence was probably that of officials to
check procedure and prevent miscarriage of the law.
Diodorus actually differentiates between the Druids and the seers
who divine by human sacrifice. He says that on great occasions
the 'vates' nominate a person as a sacrifice and, after plunging
a dagger into him, they read the future from the manner of his
fall and the twitching of his limbs and the flow of blood. He
adds that it was not the custom to make the sacrifice without a
Druid, for it was a saying that offerings acceptable to the gods
had to be made through those acquainted with their nature. He
concludes that in internal wars among the Celts both sides would
obey the Druids. Even when two armies were about to open battle,
if a Druid stepped between them they would be forced to desist.
Caesar emphasizes that it was upon occasions of danger, whether
pubic or private - the Celts of Gaul immolated human victims, or
vowed to do so, employing the Druids as to the conducting of
these sacrifices. He adds that in order to appease the gods, a
life must be paid. 'Others make use of colossal figures composed
of twigs which they fill with living men and set on fire.' Caesar
adds a new twist to this, when he says that the victims were
preferably criminals but if the supply failed then the innocent
were used. This passage corresponds in general very closely with
those by Strabo and Diodorus and it may be safely assumed that
he, too, was using the same source.
Caesar's contemporary, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) in his
oration in 64 BC, 'Pro Fonteio,' mentions the prevalence of human
sacrifice among the Gaulish Celts as if it were a well-known fact
at the time. But whether this was merely something he had picked
up from Poseidonius, the source of Strabo, Diodorus and Caesar,
is a moot point.
Certainly, Pomponius Mela of Tingentera (near Gibraltar) C.AD 43,
who wrote in that year 'De Chorographia,' the earliest surviving
Latin work on geography, which gives information on the Druids
not found elsewhere, reports that the Celts had once made human
sacrifices but that they were now a thing of the past. 'At one
time they believed a man to be highly pleasing as a sacrifice to
the gods.' However, Mela does not refer to the Druids as being in
any away connected with sacrifices. But he says of the Celts:
'They have, further, their eloquence and their Druids,
teachers of wisdom, who profess to know the greatness and
shape of the earth and the universe, and the motion of the
heavens and of the stars and what is the will of the gods.'
Mela certainly borrows some material from Caesar, such as the
passage: 'One of their dogmas has become widely known so they may
the more readily go to wars; namely that souls are everlasting,
and that among the shades there is another life.'
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, Lucan, (AD 39-65) from Cordoba, a
grandson of Seneca the Elder, is concerned to support Rome's
imperial policies and justifies the repression of the Druids
because of the 'barbaric rites and a forbidding mode of worship
in deep groves'. In this he seems to be hinting at the ritual of
human sacrifice.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (b. C.AD 70) in his 'Lives of the
Caesars,' speaking of Claudius' reign, mentions that the religion
of the Druids was 'cruel and savage' and thus hints at human
sacrifice, like Lucan, but again without actually stating so.
We have a clearer reference from Tacitus who speaks of human
sacrifices in Mona (Anglesey). He says that when Suetonius
attacked Anglesey, the Druids 'lifting up their hands to heaven,
and pouring forth maledictions, awed the Romans by the unfamiliar
sight'.
After the conquest: 'A force was next set up over the conquered,
and their groves devoted to cruel superstitions were cut down.
They deemed it a duty, indeed, to cover their altars with the
blood of captives, and to consult their deities through human
entrails.'
Petronius Arbiter (d. AD 65) is quoted by Marius Servius
Honoratus (c. fifth century AD) on the rite of the emissary
sacrifice, whereby a person is chosen to be sacrificed to the
gods. In ancient Greece, where of course sacrifice was practised,
the victim was called pharmakos, a scapegoat. Petronius refers to
this custom in Marseilles:
Whenever an epidemic broke out at Marseilles, one of the
poor of the town offered himself to save his fellow
citizens. For a whole year he had to be fed with choice
goods at the town's expense. When the time came, crowned
with leaves and wearing consecrated clothes, he was led
through the whole town; he was heaped with imprecations, so
that all the ills of the city were concentrated upon his
head, and then he was thrown into the sea.
While Marseilles was a Greek colony, founded in the sixth century
BC, and this practice was undoubtedly a Greek custom, it has also
been argued that Marseilles was on the Gaulish seaboard and that
it was probably a Celtic custom. Lactantius Placidus, giving a
commentary on the work of the Celtic writer, Caecilius Statius,
from the Cisalpine Gaulish town of Mediolanum (Milan), talks of a
similar custom which he attributes to his fellow Celts. Statius
was brought to Rome as a slave c.223/222 BC, following the Roman
invasion of the Celtic territory. Freed, he became the chief
Latin comic dramatist of his day. According to Placidus' comments
on Statius:
The Gauls had a custom of sacrificing a human being to
purify their city. They selected one of the poorest
citizens, loaded him with privileges and thereby persuaded
him to sell himself as victim. During the whole year he was
fed with choice food at the town's expenses, then when the
accustomed day arrived, he was made to wander through the
entire city; finally he was stoned to death by the people
outside the walls.
The passage is so similar to the comment on the Massiliot custom
that it seems obvious that they both have a common source. But
was it Greek or Celtic?
If such a basic philosophy as the need to propitiate their gods
through human sacrifice had such prevalence among the Celtic
peoples, one might expect some mention of it to emerge in the
extensive Celtic literature, especially as these traditions were
set down by Christianized Celts who would seize the chance to
impugn their pagan past and revile the Druidic traditions.
O'Curry in his 'Manners and Customs o f the Ancient Irish,'
maintained: 'in NO tale or legend of the Irish Druids which has
come down to our time, is there any mention of their ever having
offered human sacrifices'. There is, however, one specific
reference to human sacrifice as a religious rite but not
connected with Druidical observation. But it is one reference in
the whole corpus of Celtic literature and even its veracity is
questionable as it is open to interpretation.
This SOLE reference to human sacrifice as a SPECIFIC religious
rite in general practice comes from the twelfth century
compilation of Irish place-names, the Dindshenchas (sometimes
given as Dinnsenchus), recording traditions much older than the
period it survives from. The Dindshenchas was recorded by a
Christian scribe, of course, and mentions human sacrifice only
twice in the account of the naming of Tailltenn and Magh Slecht.
The first reference is to Patrick preaching at Tailltenn and
arguing against the 'burning of the first born progeny', while
the second reference is to the worship of the idol Cromm Cruach
at Magh Slecht.
Cromm Cruach (sometimes Crom Croich) was an early golden idol who
was reported to have twelve stone gods to serve him and who was
worshipped by the king Tigernmas (Lord of Death) on Magh Slecht
(Plain of Cutting/Slaughter). To Cromm Cruach human sacrifices
were offered in the form of 'the firstlings of every issue, and
the chief scions of every clan.' This concept of the 'first born'
as sacrifices seems more in keeping with Hebrew Biblical
tradition, via Christianity, than Celtic custom. Importantly, as
already pointed out, the concept of primogeniture, which stresses
the importance of the first-born male, or, indeed, female, was
lacking in the Celtic social order. A foreign concept has been
introduced which places the whole validity of the Cromm Cruach
story under question. We are told that for Cromm Cruach 'they
would kill their piteous wretched offspring with much wailing and
peril, to pour their blood around Cromm Cruach. Milk and honey'
(again this seems more a Biblical analogy than a pre-Christian
Celtic one) 'they would ask from the idol in return for
sacrificing one third of their healthy issue. Great was the
horror and the fear of the idol. To him noble Gaels would
prostrate themselves. From the worship of the idol with many
slaughters, the plain is called Magh Slecht.' (Slecht. cutting,
hewing, slaughter.)
But this story is, in fact, presented in the form that Tigernmos
and his idol were a social aberration and were soon overthrown by
the Druids.
In the 'Leabbar na Nuacbongbbala' (Book of Leinster), there is a
prose account of the idol and the death of Tigernmas with a
multitude of his people while in the act of frenzied worshipping,
an echo of the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah which might have seized
the imagination of the Christian writers. But there is not a word
about human sacrifice in this particular account, neither was
it mentioned by the later writers such as Seathrun, Ceitinn,
Ruaraidh O Flaithbheartaigh (Roderick O'Flaherty) or in the
reference given in the 'Annales Riogbachta Eireann' (Annals of
the Four Masters). Also, earlier in the ninth century AD, when
the 'Tripartite Life o f St. Patrick' claimed it was Patrick who
overthrew the idol, rather than the Druids, no mention of human
sacrifice is made. In fact, in Patrick's own 'Confession,' his
biography, in which he strongly criticizes pagan practices, there
is no reference to human sacrifice. Nor does any of the early
Celtic saints 'Lives' mention such a rite. It seems obvious that
the prejudice of the Christians had NO GENUINE 'human sacrifice'
material at all to seize upon.
There are a couple of other references which might well imply the
existence of human sacrifice but as a very ancient custom long
since abandoned by the end of the FIRST millennium BC. This
custom, however, is to be found in most early European societies.
These references are connected with the ancient superstition that
sprinkling the blood of some human victim on the foundations of a
building, about to be erected, provides for its safety and
stability. This custom has been found in Hindu culture, among the
Greeks, Slavs and Scandinavians. In a Life of Colmcille, it is
recorded that one of his disciples, Odran, a British Celt,
offered to die so that his sacrifice and burial would scare away
the demons that infested Iona. There are oral traditions relating
to this, to the effect that Odran was buried under the
foundations of Colmcille's church. According to Alexander
Carmichael's 'Carmina Gadelica' (1900), there are oral traditions
found throughout the Hebrides of persons killed and buried, or
even buried alive, under the foundations of newly erected
buildings to ensure stability. But is this a tradition from the
Celtic or the Scandinavian traditions, which were also prevalent
among the Western Islands?
This custom is certainly reflected in 'Historia Brittonum' by
Nenmus, the Welsh historian writing C.AD 829, which records that
when Vortigern decided to build Dinas Emrys he consulted his
Druids who told him that in order for the structure to last
forever, a child, who had no father, should be sacrificed and his
blood sprinkled on the foundations. Such a child was found. But
the boy had great wisdom and argued the morality of the sacrifice
with the Druids so successfully that he was released. The boy was
Merlin. This story actually corresponds closely with an ancient
Irish tale, 'The Courtship of Becuma', copied into the fifteenth
century AD 'Book of Fermoy' from an earlier source. In this story
a blight comes to the country because of a great crime committed
by a woman. The Druids say that the only way to remove the blight
is to sacrifice a child, the son of a couple who would have
certain characteristics. The child's blood should be sprinkled on
the doorposts of Tara. The child is found and about to be killed
when a wondrous cow appears and is slain instead. The doorposts
are sprinkled with its blood and the blight removed. There are
also certain similarities between this and the Greek story of
Iphigeneia, the sister of Orestes, whom Agamemnon was forced to
sacrifice on the order of the seer Calchas. Artemis substitutes a
deer for her on the sacrificial altar.
There is one other oblique Irish reference to this concept. In
the Sanas Cbormaic (Cormac's Glossary), written by Cormac Mac
Cuileannain of Cashel (d. AD 836), Emain Macha, the great palace
of the kings of Ulster, received part of its name due to the
sacrifice of a man at the time of its building. The fanciful
etymology gives 'em' or 'ema' (blood), 'ain' or 'uin' (one),
'because the blood of one man was shed at the time of its
erection'.
Of all the Classical writers, it is Pomponius Mela who seems the
most accurate in recording that any tradition of human sacrifice
among the Celts had ended long before the time he was writing,
that is c. AD 46.Indeed, while there is much material on the
rites and superstitions of the pagan Irish there is hardly
anything, apart from the story of Cromm Cruach. This might be
argued as supporting a claim of a human sacrifice tradition but
the story actually shows Cromm Cruach as an aberration to the
norms of society.
Even Mrs Chadwick, in her study 'The Celts,' while inclined to
believe the Romans, has to admit:
'There is little direct archaeological evidence relevant to
Celtic sacrifice ....'
In her attempt to find something, she refers too the evidence of
bodies preserved in a bog in Denmark, but while she has to admit
that they are 'beyond the boundaries of the Celtic world proper'
she still tries to link them up with the motifs on the Gundestrup
cauldron. She has the scholastic grace to say that human
sacrifices are 'apparently represented on the bowl from
Gundestrup'.
The much more plentiful archaeological evidence,
corroborated by classical literary references to various
offerings of inanimate objects, often of considerable value,
in rivers, lakes, sacred groves and the like, and the
possibility of animal sacrifice, suggest hat human sacrifice
among he Celts, although of great ritual significance, may
have been practised,appear commonly at time of communal
danger or stress, rather than as part of regular ritual
observance.
This comment by Mrs Chadwick makes many conceptual leaps. Why the
offering of inanimate objects should lead one to believe that the
people who made them also practised human sacrifice escapes one,
as does the reason why human sacrifice should be of great ritual
significance when there was no native literary or archaeological
evidence to support it. And how is it that it was commonly
practised at the time of communal danger when the only authority
for such a statement is the sole and questionable opinion of
Caesar?
Mrs Chadwick's comments rely on an acceptance that the enemies of
the Celts were accurate in their observations.
Indeed, as Jean Louis Brunaux states in 'The Celtic Gauls':
Archaeological clues relating to the question of human
sacrifice have for a long time been scarce and equivocal.
The presence in graves of skeletons without a skull or the
strange position of some burials with hands behind the back
as though tied, have indeed been cited, but no formal proof
of sacrifice as opposed to exceptional funereal customs has
been identified.
The excavations at Gournay-sur-Aronde in France show some eighty
skeletons of bodies that had apparently been divided into
quarters.
If the deaths were violent, no trace has been left on the
remains. Brunaux seems to imply that this was a funeral practice
after people had died naturally. Similarly, the excavation at
Ribemont-sur-Ancre in 1982, showed bones meticulously arranged
belonging to some 200 individuals. But these excavations, along
with those at Mirebeau and Saint-Maur, are more likely to be of
Celtic cemeteries rather than evidence of sacrifices.
...........
TO BE CONTINUED
|
