So what’s ‘Celtic’?

'Celtic' is an umbrella term that refers to a group of cultures that share similarities in language or material culture (i.e. The stuff that gets left behind by a people, like artistic styles, building techniques and so on).

As it is used today, ‘Celtic’ is a relatively modern term. It is based on the Greek word Keltoi (which originally referred to a tribe in southwest Germany), first used in the sixth century BC. By the first century BC it was recognised that Keltoi or Celtae (in Greek or Latin), as the classical authors say they called themselves, was interchangeable with the Greek Galatae or the Latin Galli as the Greeks and Romans called them, giving a firm link between the Celts and the Gauls.¹

It wasn't until the sixteenth century that the connection between the Celts of classical times was made with the surviving groups in places like Ireland, Scotland and Wales who still spoke a Celtic language, and it was another few hundred years before the study of 'the Celts' – referring to any culture that shared a common linguistic heritage - really came into vogue.²

So who’s Celtic?

If we view the term 'Celtic' as being based on language, there are lots of different groups that come under the umbrella. They all share a common origin with a theoretical original Celtic language usually called proto-Celtic, or Common Celtic. Over time, different languages evolved from this common ancestor, some of which survive up until today, but most of which died out long ago.

Modern linguistic groups include:

• Irish Gaelic
• Scots Gaelic
• Welsh
• Cornish
• Manx
• Breton

Historical linguistic groups include:

• Gaulish
• Brythonic (in Britain)
• Pictish
• Cumbric
• Galatian
• Lepontic
• Celt-Iberian
• Noric³

For some of the languages and the people who spoke them we know very little and can't really say too much, making reconstruction very difficult or even impossible.

Other languages, like Breton, evolved after the Christian period and so have little relevance to the reconstruction of pre-Christian beliefs, though this isn't to say that the people who spoke the language don't retain any pre-Christian elements in their practices and beliefs.

With the others, we find ourselves on firmer ground and so generally you'll find reconstructionists who identify as Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Brythonic, or Gaulish. Pictish is one of those cultures where very little survives in tact, though some elements can be seen to have survived after the Dal Riadans and the Picts united into what eventually became the kingdom of Scotland.

Reconstruction?

The pre-Christian beliefs of these cultures or linguistic groups are no longer known in their entirety, either due to the loss of the culture itself - by conquest, for example - or else a change in religion rather than culture alone (the spread of Christianity, for example).

The pre-Christian Celts didn't write about their beliefs or practices - in fact, Julius Caesar wrote that the Gaulish druids felt that it was ‘improper’ for such things to be put in writing and we can only assume that this was the same in places like Ireland and Britain.⁴ This means we don’t have anything about their beliefs in any great detail from the people themselves, as other reconstructionist groups might.

Celtic Reconstructionists therefore tend to draw from three main sources in reconstructing the beliefs and practises: archaeology, historical sources (such as the classical sources and evidence from Celtic countries after Roman conquest, or myths recorded during Christian times) and the more modern tradition/folklore that can often be seen to preserve pagan elements of belief and practice.

None of these sources are perfect, and there is always a certain amount of guesswork involved in figuring out what actually went on. As a result, Celtic Reconstructionists rely on a certain amount of UPG - Unverified Personal Gnosis, or "stuff that feels true in my gut, but I can’t prove with hard evidence." This UPG helps to fill in the gaps, so to speak.

However, recons do tend to emphasise that which can be verified by ‘hard evidence’ (information that can be backed up by scholarly references) and so UPG tends to take a backseat to hard evidence. You might guess, then, that Celtic Reconstructionism involves quite a bit of reading and self-study, especially since there’s no straightforward ‘how to’ manual (yet).

Most CRs these days tend to focus on a particular Celtic culture (perhaps influenced by how modern Celtic Studies has evolved, and therefore the academic resources available), the most popular being Irish.

But what about….you know…the bad stuff?

Celtic Reconstructionists recognise that there are certain elements of pre-Christian belief and practise that aren’t appropriate or possible to reconstruct in a modern context.

While you've probably read that CR aims to build a path based on what Celtic beliefs might look like without the advent of Christianity, it cannot be ignored that modern principles and ethics (inevitably influenced by modern major religions like Christianity) affect our approach to reconstruction, as do laws that are generally based on those principles and ethics.

Human sacrifice, as the most obvious example, is not a part of Celtic Reconstruction, and for a lot of people neither is animal sacrifice (for the fact that not many people know how to kill an animal humanely, if anything else). It’s not just because such practices would be illegal that we don’t practise them…they’re also often considered unnecessary because there's clear evidence to suggest that other types of offerings such as whisky, dairy produce or other culturally specific offerings evolved from such practices and are considered to be just as good. (See Offerings).

Modern technologies like the internet have been invaluable - instrumental - in the development of CR as a whole, so there’s no expectation that we should all start living in roundhouses with no electricity, and so on…Neither does it mean we have to go back to what are often quaintly called 'primitive' or 'barbaric' practices.

But if the beliefs have been lost and nothing was written down, what do you actually know?

Well the short answer would be to look around here to see what I think about that...

But generally, it could be said that while the beliefs and practices as a whole have been lost, certain elements can still be seen that, overall, give a well-defined and consistent structure, from the dim and distant past to the present day.

The observance of the festivals La Feill Bhride, Bealtuinn, Lúnasadal and Samhuinn clearly have pagan origins (as recorded in myth and early medieval records), but were celebrated widely into the twentieth century in parts of Scotland and Ireland, for example, albeit within a Christianised context. Folklorists, antiquarians and scholars like Alexander Carmichael, Martin Martin, F Marian McNeill, Maire MacNeill and Kevin Danaher all provide a wealth of information on these survivals from Scotland or Ireland from the eighteenth century onwards.

Archaeology helps to show how the Celts expressed themselves in ritual in pre-Christian times, which can then be compared with the surviving records or practices, and consistencies can often be seen. The use of bonfires at festival occasions, for example, can be seen in the archaeological record at Uisnech in Ireland, which was also written about in medieval and early modern sources, and can be compared with other historical evidence and surviving folk practice elsewhere in Ireland and Scotland into modern times.

Historical sources can inform us on the Celtic cultures that have myths that have been preserved, and therefore how they perceived their gods, as well as more incidental references to practices that were considered to be (or known to be) pagan in origin.

At the end of the day, though, any spiritual path requires a certain element of faith. While Celtic Reconstructionism relies a lot on academic sources with which to inform its practises, these sources are not the be all and end all of the path. UPG helps to flesh out the gaps and inevitably there has to be room for manoeuvre when old research is replaced by new.

Contrary to popular perception, then, CRs have to be flexible in their beliefs, to a certain extent. While there has not been any new research to date that turns some of the fundamental beliefs of CR on its head, there is always the possibility, no matter how remote. More usually, any new research that comes to light helps to expand on the information that’s already available, without changing the fundamental tenets.

But…you all seem so knowledgeable and I don’t feel like I know enough…how can I be CR?

All CRs have to start somewhere, and not all CRs have a degree in Celtic Studies or the like. Reading is a good start: Study what interests you. Read the myths, since these are a good place to start learning about the gods; read up on history and archaeology of the Celtic cultures. Explore.

Since there’s a lot of wrong information on the Celts out there, try sticking to the more reputable sources that tend to be recommended by most CRs. The Quick and Dirty ‘Where Do I Start?’ Book List might help, along with the Links page and the Big Book List. For practical ideas, try the Getting Started: Daily Practises section, or take a look at the CR FAQ.

To sum it all up then:

Celtic Reconstructionism can therefore be said to be the reconstruction of pre-Christian beliefs of Celtic cultures into the modern day, using historical, archaeological and traditional/folkloric sources with which to base these practices on.

While reading and research using reliable sources is emphasised within a reconstructionist approach, studying is not the be all and end all of the path. Celtic Reconstructionists, while they are essentially putting together a modern path based on old beliefs, are actively practising a spiritual path as well as studying the resources in a more intellectual manner.

In short, Celtic Reconstructionists are creating a living tradition based on traditions that have mostly been lost or taken out of context.

And…I’m sorry to be pedantic but…

It’s Welsh, not Welch. And Scottish, not Scotch. Scotch is a type of whisky. Or beef.

References