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.

Because of this, it would be fair to say that an exact reconstruction of Celtic pre-Christian religious practises is nigh impossible, and in this sense the term 'reconstructionism' is something of a misnomer. However, the Wikipedia entry for Celtic Reconstructionism states that the term was chosen to distinguish it from eclectic and largely Wiccan-influenced paths that were evolving and gaining attention in the popular press at the time of Celtic Reconstructionism's early inception. As such, the 'Reconstructionist' label identifies the path with other forms of polytheistic reconstructionism, who use the same methodology in developing their practises.

In following this methodology, then, Celtic Reconstructionists 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 the myths, annals and literature recorded during Christian times) and the more modern traditions/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 it with hard evidence." This UPG helps to fill in the gaps, so to speak.⁵

However, reconstructionists 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).

Celtic Reconstructionists 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. Because of this, some reconstructionists have begun adopting labels to describe their practises that are more relevant to the culture they are focusing on. As a result, terms such as Gaelic Polytheism (or more specifically, Gaelic Reconstructionist Polytheism), Paganchd/Paganacht, Senistrognata, Fálachus, or Ildiachus, to name but a few, have been used by groups and individuals with varying degrees of success or popularity. One of the problems with using these terms is that they are not as easily understood or particularly self-explanatory to outsiders as 'Celtic Reconstructionism' is, which is why the label remains popular today as an umbrella term even though many groups are now distancing themselves from it.  

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 Celtic Reconstructionism 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 Là Fhèill Brìghde, Bealltainn, Lùnastal and Samhainn clearly have pre-Christian 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. In some cases, these festivals still are celebrated in a traditional manner. 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 various Celtic cultures 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 which 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, Celtic Reconstructionists 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 Celtic Reconstructionism 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 a Celtic Reconstructionist?

All Celtic Reconstructionists have to start somewhere, and not everyone has 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 Celtic Reconstructionists. 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 Daily Practices section, or take a look at the CR FAQ. To try and break it all up a little, there's the Getting Started page, too.

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. Since many (but not all) Celtic Reconstructionists might also have family members who emigrated from Ireland, Scotland or Wales (etc) but who were not brought up with the survivals of tradition, it can also be argued that it's a means of reconstructing or reviving those traditions within the family once more. 

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. Or a savoury egg surrounded by sausagemeat and golden breadcrumbd...

References