The guy from the National Museum of wales did get very defensive when Tony did his devil's advocate bit and suggested that we didn't know much about the Druids.
Yeah I noticed that... but he did not really expand on how we do know.. apart from a few mutters about having poets in wales... ergo... we are druids... er...ah... yes...
So can anyone show a direct link from Iron Age Druids to the present...?
I was a bit confused about this too. I'm sure he wasn't trying to imply a line of uninterrupted continuity from LPRIA Druids to modern day ones. My thought was that perhaps he was alluding to a continuing tradition of honouring and acknowledging the intelligentsia of society in modern Wales and drawing comparisons with the two.
There is no evidence for Wicker Men in Britain, is there? In fact, I seem to recall someone (sorry can't remember who) questioning if there were Wicker Men at all and that it was a wicker structure.
Wicca men perhaps? In which case some form of continuous druidic presence could be presumed.
They could have shown the film afterwards -that would have put us all off Sunday supper!
I am surprised the Romans were aghast at 'wicker men', if they existed )about which I personally harbour some considerable doubt.) After all they put people in arenas with wild animals, Nero crucified them and set light to them, and gladiators fought to the death - seems like the same kind of 'wicked-ness' to me. Which makes me doubt a bit more!
The nation of all the Gauls is extremely devoted to superstitious rites; and on that account they who are troubled with unusually severe diseases and they who are engaged in battles and dangers, either sacrifice men as victims, or vow that they will sacrifice them, and employ the Druids as the performers of those sacrifices; because they think that unless the life of a man be offered for the life of a man, the mind of the immortal gods cannot be rendered propitious, and they have sacrifices of that kind ordained for national purposes. Others have figures of vast size, the limbs of which formed of osiers they fill with living men, which being set on fire, the men perish enveloped in the flames. They consider that the oblation of such as have been taken in theft, or in robbery, or any other offence, is more acceptable to the immortal gods; but when a supply of that class is wanting, they have recourse to the oblation of even the innocent.
Caius Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico and Other Commentaries , translated by W. A. MacDevitt.
This is apparently the only reference to wicker men.
Originally posted by Jean Manco: This is apparently the only reference to wicker men.
There is also a reference to " a colossus of straw and wood" by Strabo in the Geography (IV, 4, 5) - I don't know how literal the translation is though.
Originally posted by Jean Manco: My mistake. I wonder if Strabo took that from Caesar. It is slightly different. Stabo refers to animals in the colossus, as well as men.
Miranda Green (in her book that was very much on display in the incident room in the programme) suggests that they were both drawing on an account by Posidonius.
Originally posted by Ann W.: I am surprised the Romans were aghast at 'wicker men', if they existed )about which I personally harbour some considerable doubt.) After all they put people in arenas with wild animals, Nero crucified them and set light to them, and gladiators fought to the death - seems like the same kind of 'wicked-ness' to me. Which makes me doubt a bit more!
Yes, the Romans seemed to have their own peculiar definition of human sacrifice.
Originally posted by Ann W.: I am surprised the Romans were aghast at 'wicker men', if they existed )about which I personally harbour some considerable doubt.) After all they put people in arenas with wild animals, Nero crucified them and set light to them, and gladiators fought to the death - seems like the same kind of 'wicked-ness' to me. Which makes me doubt a bit more!
Yes, the Romans seemed to have their own peculiar definition of human sacrifice.
Possibly because those who ended up in the Roman arena's were never actually regarded as sacrifices to a supernatural authority, prehaps?
What seems to have appalled the Romans was although the Celtic gods supposedly preferred their sacrifices to be criminals, they were quite happy to use innocent victims when they ran out of criminals.
Well, this has to have been the most disappointing TT for me. Not the worst, but I had been looking forward to it so much, but the actual dig was surrounded by such a lot of preconceived mumbo jumbo that I could hardly concentrate on the archaeology. Having downloaded it from 4oD, I have just watched it again to get my 99 pennyworth, and it is worse second time around.
Even before the main titles we have TR introducing the discovery (or re-discovery?) of the site by aerial survey, adding
quote:
... but what makes this even more intriguing is its location - in a landscape rich in archaeology and on an island that was once the home to one of history's most mysterious groups, accused of magical rituals, human sacrifice, even cannibalism - the Druids!
Says who? And even if there were Druids on Anglesey, why are we suddenly expected to believe that this site is connected with them. Surely nobody believes that Anglesey was solely populated by Druids? This presumption that the site has Druidic connections keeps coming up throughout the programme, but in the first ten minutes we are absolutely bombarded with it.
TR:
quote:
If it is Roman then it's the product of one of the bloodiest episodes in Welsh history.
He then continues about how in AD 61 (do we know that?) the Roman army piled onto the island "to destroy the stronghold of British resistance" (know that's better) - "an insurgency led by the Druids".
I was taking notes, but I lost the will after a while and just caught little gems like " .... a relic of a lost world dominated by the Druids ...." etc.
Then, when it comes to the piece with Ken Brassil, he gets it right (IMHO)
quote:
I know we've got evidence of Iron Age Celts ( oh well ) in this part of the country, but do we actually have tangible evidence of Druids.
And I know, before he opens his mouth, what Ken is going to say because I can see all the Llyn Cerrig Bach stuff on the table. He asks who was directing the votive depositions at that site - aargh! the Druids? There is no evidence at all to connect them. Tony says in reply that there is a lack of finds to be of any use as evidence for the existence of Druids on Anglesey - nothing tangible. I think he's making a great point and then it dawns that he is (as said elsewhere on this thread) just playing Devil's Advocate and does not really believe in this anymore than Messers Pryor and Brassil. The reply is that the Romans cut down the Druids' sacred oak groves and how could we expect any of that to survive - absence of evidence bla, bla, blah!
Sorry - I'm rambling again. I'll just go and lie down in a darkened room.
I don't think this was a bad episode, although I admit not a classic. It had an interesting reason to go and dig the site, the finds were then not exactly what was expected, but then it all changed on day 3 (even if the conclusions were a bit woolly). So I thought it was entertaining and told a useful archaeological story.
However I agree that the druid bits were distracting. Of course that is what they focus on for the TV, because that sounds dramatic and duids conjur up images with people. The man from the National Museum of Wales did irritate me a bit, but I just ignored those bits.
Possibly because those who ended up in the Roman arena's were never actually regarded as sacrifices to a supernatural authority, prehaps?
What seems to have appalled the Romans was although the Celtic gods supposedly preferred their sacrifices to be criminals, they were quite happy to use innocent victims when they ran out of criminals.
A very timely reminder Chris that I was looking at it with 21st century thinking and logic...
Originally posted by Hudson: I don't think this was a bad episode, although I admit not a classic.
Yes, I agree. It was my personal expectations that made it disappointing for me. I've got a bit of a bee in my bonnet about Anglesey and its Druids, about which I have bored people senseless in the past,here and on other forums.
The archaeology was good, I thought, but largely ignored. The roundhouse reconstruction seemed to have been wedged in at the end (wattle and daub walls as featured on TT episodes elsewhere, while many Anglesey excavations suggest a preference for stone walled roundhouses) and then that Wicker Man thing at the end which had obviously been set up long before the dig had started. I thought Tony was being somewhat overly optimistic about his interpretation of the site.
quote:
We've finally recovered the remains of Anglesey's lost Iron Age world. A world the Romans tell us was dominated by the Druids.
In fact, the Wicker Man piece (far from being the daftest TT cameo item I've seen) produced the most ludicrous link of the programme. I had to chuckle at this gem:
quote:
.... but they claim the Druids burnt sacrificed victims inside giant wicker effigies; but is this just Roman propaganda? We're building our own Wicker Man to find out.
Originally posted by AJ ap: Go Steff, go Steff, go!
Dont stop there mucker, rip it to bits.
No, part of the reason that I was disappointed in this episode was that it produced no serious debate on the subject. I would expect Key Stage 2 kids to be more critical of their sources. Where was Miranda though? Too busy talking about Hadrian's Wall in Timewatch?
Miranda Green (in her book that was very much on display in the incident room in the programme) suggests that they were both drawing on an account by Posidonius.
Makes sense now I look into it. Roman history is not my forte, as you can tell.
Miranda Green (in her book that was very much on display in the incident room in the programme) suggests that they were both drawing on an account by Posidonius.
Makes sense now I look into it. Roman history is not my forte, as you can tell.
