Hohmichele lies 1.5 kilometres west of Heuneburg. The mound was 14 metres high and 80 metres in diameter. During 1937–38 archaeologists found a central grave chamber, lined with wooden boards, but sadly its contents had almost vanished through grave robbers. Around it were lesser graves among which was the intact grave of a man and a woman found with a four-wheeled wagon and harness and many utensils and items of jewellery. However, many of the most prominent graves have fallen victim to grave robbers over the centuries.
Some graves have not yet been excavated, such as that at Hohenasperg, a hill west of Ludwigsburg, regarded as the site of one of the most important early Celtic kingdoms and near many princely graves of the late Hallstatt and early La Tène periods. The reason why no archaeological excavation has taken place is because the site has been extensively built over.
Some of the best princely graves of the La Tène period are at Rodenbach, dating to the fifth century BC. Here, the royal corpse had golden rings on his arms and fingers, and weapons and utensils were also discovered. These are now in the Historisches Museum der Pfalz. Schwarzenbach, excavated in 1849, produced two princely graves containing golden jewellery, dishes, weapons, gold masks and other riches. Most of the finds have mysteriously disappeared, probably looted from Berlin in 1945. Two more graves found at Wesikirkchen, in Merzig-wadern in the Saar, and dated to the fifth/fourth centuries BC, also revealed some rich material which is now in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Bonn and the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Trier.
Royal graves have not been discovered in such profusion in Britain but this might well be due to prolonged ravaging of sites, grave robbing and building. One of the most exciting finds was made at Deal, in Kent, where the grave of an adult male, buried c. 200–100 BC, was recently excavated. He had been buried with a shield, too fragmentary to restore, although bronze decorations and ornamentations revealed a characteristic Celtic shape. He also had a sword. What was more exciting was that he wore a crown, also of bronze. Archaeologists have, so far, been nervous of identifying him as a king, in spite of the crown, wondering whether he might be simply a warrior priest. It would be doubtful if a person other than a king wore such headgear.
We can see from just these few examples of royal graves of the early Celtic period the power of the ancient Celtic kings. There is one Celtic area which, hitherto, has failed to yield discoveries matching the magnificent Hallstatt and La Tène princely burials on the Continent, and that is Ireland. There seems no trace of chariot burials at all. However, Irish records show that in pre-Christian times there were ‘royal cemeteries’ in various parts of the country for the interment of kings and their families. In the remarkable Senchus na Relec (History of Cemeteries), contained in Leabhar na hUidri, compiled c. AD 1100, we are told that Croghan was called Relig na Ríg (Burial Place of the Kings). It was situated near Tulsk, Co. Roscommon, the seat of the kings of Connacht.
The old records also state that kings and chieftains were buried in varied ways, some lying flat, others sitting, but often in a standing posture, arrayed in full battle gear with shield and weapons and with their face turned towards the territories of their enemies.
When can we begin to put names to the early Celtic kings? Unfortunately, not until the start of the sixth century BC, if we ignore the Irish king lists and genealogies. We shall come to these in a moment. On the Continent, however, the Greeks give us the name of Arganthonios, the Celtic king who made a trade agreement with the Greek merchants of Phocis. His people exploited the silver mines in southern Iberia and his name has the Celtic root for ‘silver’ in it. Later Roman historians speak of Ambicatus, the sixth-century BC king of the Bituriges, who they claimed dominated the Celtic tribal kingdoms north of the Alps. Ambicatus’ name translates as ‘He who gives battle all round’. We also know of his nephews, whom he sent to seek new lands to settle – Bellovesus (He who can kill) and Segovesus (He who can conquer). Then we come to Brennus, the leader of the Senones, the conqueror of Rome during 390 BC. But does his name imply ‘king’ (from brennin) or is it a form of Bran meaning ‘raven’? Brennus had exactly the same name as the main leader of the Celtic invading army which sacked Delphi in 279 BC.
We know the names of Aneroestes and Concolitanus who commanded the Celts in the events which led to their greatest defeat on the Italian peninsula in 222 BC at Telamon. We know of Viridomarus who perished in single combat with the consul Marcus Claudius Marcellus and whose name derives from viro (man) and marus (great). He called himself a ‘son of Rhenus’, which made scholars leap to the conclusion that he was a mercenary from the Rhine. They overlook the fact that the Celtic name Rhenus was also given to a river in the Po valley – the Reno. Judging from the accounts, Viridomarus appeared to be the ruler of the Insubres of the Milan area. He must not be confused with another Viridomarus who was an Aeduan leader and rival to Eporedorix (King of horsemen) in Julius Caesar’s time.
We know the names of Iberian Celtic kings as well, such as Avaros whose capital was Numantia and who valiantly held out against the Roman siege in 153 BC. His successor was Rhetogenes, a name which seems to imply that he was of the ‘ancestry of the wheel’, perhaps a reference to divine ancestry of the wheel, or solar, god. And there is Virithos of the Lusitani whose name seems to imply a ‘reborn man’ (viri, man, athios, reborn, recognisable in the old Irish athgainiur, I am reborn).
There was a powerful ‘over king’ of southern Britain called Cassivellaunus; either he took his name from his tribe or vice versa. The name means ‘Lover of Belenus’, the god. His power is clear from the fact that he was given command by all the petty kings of southern Britain to meet Julius Caesar’s second attempt at invasion and conquest in 54 BC.
But now other names are emerging and ones we can put more flesh on. There is Vercingetorix, son of Celtillus (Great King of Heroes), who was acknowledged king of an alliance of the Gaulish peoples in their struggle against Caesar. After his initial success, forcing Caesar to retreat for the first time in his military career, Vercingetorix’ forces were trapped in Alesia and he surrendered. Taken to Rome, he was kept for years in an underground prison before being ritually slaughtered to celebrate Caesar’s triumph over the Gauls. It may also be remembered that Cingetorix (King of Heroes) was one of four British Celtic kings, of the Cantii, who came to Caesar’s camp in southern Britain. The other kings of the Cantii who met Caesar were Carvilius, Taximagulus and Segovax.
It is from Caesar, of course, that we know the names of many of the Gaulish kings including Diviciacus, pro-Roman king of the Aedui who addressed the Roman Senate in 61 BC. The name appears to mean ‘Avenger’. (He is not to be confused with another Diviciacus, a powerful king of the Suessiones ruling about 100 BC and minting his own coins.) Diviciacus’ anti-Roman brother, Dumnorix (King of the World), was held hostage by Caesar and cut down by his soldiers while trying to escape.
Deiotaros I of Galatia proved to be one of the most politically adept of Celtic kings. ‘The Divine Bull’ ruled the three united tribes of Celtic Galatia from his fortress at Blucium, where he once entertained Julius Caesar; he survived many of the internal squabbles of the Roman republic to keep his kingdom fairly independent before he died c. 41 BC aged about eighty.
The ‘Belenus’ name continues with the famous Cunobelinus, the Hound of Belenus made even more famous by Shakespeare as Cymbeline. Cunobelinus succeeded Tasciovanos c. AD 10; under his rule London grew to prominence as a trading port and Britain became a leading commercial centre. Cunobelinus never sought Roman friendship but there is no record of his doing anything to excite Roman enmity. He was powerful, issuing his own coinage, like his predecessors, and it was only on his death in about AD 40 that Rome decided to seize its chance and attempt a conquest. Many of the petty British kings had argued againt Cunobelinus’ son Caractacus being his successor, including Caractacus’ own brothers, Togodumnus and Adminius. They were joined by another king called Bericus (perhaps Verica on British coins) who went to Rome to persuade the emperor to set th
em up in his place. Such traitors were the diplomatic excuse Rome needed for the invasion of Britain.
Caractacus (Caradog), acknowledged as over-king of southern Britain during the Claudian invasion of the country, is one of the more romantic Celtic kings, holding out for nine years against the might of the invading Roman legions before being betrayed by a Celtic queen named Cartimandua and taken, with his family, in chains to Rome. His eloquence saved their lives and he was sentenced to live in exile in the city.
Cartimandua (Sleek Pony) was another fascinating Celtic ruler. She was queen of the Briganti (Exalted Ones) who occupied the land stretching across what is now northern England from the Irish Sea to the North Sea. This was a tribal confederation. She had allied it to Rome following the conquest of the southern British tribes. She divorced her husband Venutius, and married his charioteer. The Romans had to send armies several times to help her fight against Venutius and his allies. Eventually the power of the Briganti was smashed. Unfortunately, we do not know the fate of Cartimandua.
Perhaps one of the most famous early Celtic rulers was Boudicca, whose name is translated as ‘Victory’ and Latinised as Boadicea, the queen of the Iceni in what is now East Anglia. In AD 60, having been provoked by the arrogance of a Roman official who had had her flogged and her two daughters raped, Boudicca led a mass uprising against the Romans. Her initial victories were devastating. She annihilated the IX Hispania Legion and sacked and destroyed the Roman colonial capital at what is now Colchester and their trading centres at London and St Albans. However, the Romans regrouped and won a devastating victory over the British Celts. Although Boudicca was never captured, reports had it that she and her two daughters took poison.
When Agricola attempted to conquer northern Britain, or Caledonia, he encountered a king named Calgacos (Swordsman). The historian Tacitus puts a speech into Calgacos’ mouth before the battle of Mons Graupius which is often quoted for the line, ‘they made a desert and called it peace’.
In the north-west fringes of Europe, Celtic kingdoms survived until the late medieval period, although their conquerors tried to disguise the fact by giving the kings a variety of titles from duke to prince to earl. The last king of Cornwall seems to have been a Howell who surrendered to Athelstan in AD 931. James VI of Scotland, on the death of Elizabeth I in 1603, agreed with alacrity to become James I of England. Llywellyn, the penultimate ruler of Wales, was killed by English troops at Cilmeri in 1282. His brother Dafydd ruled for only a few months before being captured and beheaded and, by the Statute of Rhuddlan, in 1284, Wales was annexed to the English crown. Francis II of Brittany had to surrender to the French King Charles VIII at St Aubin-du-Cormier; while his daughter Anne reasserted Breton independence for a while, she was inevitably faced with a marriage to Charles and the union of the crowns of Brittany and France.
In 1541 Henry VIII made himself king of Ireland and forced the Irish royal families to surrender their titles in a policy called ‘surrender and regrant’. The kings (the office of high king had already vanished) had to surrender their title and lands and were then granted the title of ‘earl’ together with some of their land back as a fiefdom from Henry as feudal king. In July 1543, for example, Murrough O’Brien, 57th King of Thomond, and direct descendant of the famous high king Brian Boru, surrendered to Henry at Greenwich. In return he was created Earl of Thomond and Baron Inchiquin. Conor O’Brien, 18th Baron Inchiquin, still lives on the family estates.
Other Irish kings were less fortunate. Donal IX The MacCarthy Mór, last regnant King of Desmond and titular King of the two Munsters, fought on, as did his family. They never surrendered and so did not enjoy titles and estates. Similarly, the O’Neills of Ulster, finally defeated, had to flee abroad where their descendants still live in Spain and Portugal.
It is worth noting that the indigenous Celtic aristocracy of Ireland, whose genealogies mostly date from twelfth-century records, is one of the most ancient in Europe. Today’s surviving heads of the Irish royal dynasties have a traceable lineage, accepted by genealogists and heralds, going back nearly 2000 years, perhaps longer if we may put some trust in the genealogies of the earlier periods.
For example, the pedigree of the Uí Néill kings of Ulster starts with a descent from Eremon, the first Milesian monarch, who is said to have ruled the northern half of Ireland in the year of the world (i.e. 1015 BC), coming down forty-one generations to Lugaid Riab nDerg who ruled in AD 65–73. From there every generation is listed down to Niall of the Nine Hostages, who ruled in AD 379–405. Today, the two houses of the Uí Néill dynasty, as represented by Don Hugo O’Neill, Prince of Clanaboy, in Portugal, and Don Marcos O’Neill, 11th Marques del Granja of Seville in Spain, can trace their unbroken lines back to Niall. Therefore, technically, they have unbroken genealogies of 3000 years. The same may be said for the current MacCarthy Mór, Prince of Desmond, whose line descends from Eber Fionn, brother of Eremon, who ruled the southern half of Ireland in 1015 BC. The MacCarthys constituted the Eóghanacht dynasty in Ireland which ruled Munster in the south and later Desmond (south Munster) until the late sixteenth century.
However, while the genealogists and heralds accept the genealogies back to the first century AD, they prefer to leave aside the genealogies stretching BC as ‘unproved’, although not going so far as some sceptical scholars who dismiss them as ‘pseudo-genealogies’ and the surrounding texts as ‘pseudo-histories’.
4
THE DRUIDS
There is no class of Celtic society that so intrigued the classical world as the Druids. The writings of the Greeks and Romans concerning Druids, with all their misinterpretations and misconceptions, have become the basis for a veritable ‘Druid industry’ which was created from the seventeenth century and has lasted into modern times.
We saw in Chapter 3 that Celtic society was based on a caste system and that the second level was the intellectual class. This class encompassed all the professional occupations – judges, doctors, historians and genealogists, philosophers, story-tellers, astronomers and astrologers, as well as the priestly orders who mediated with the deities. After them, in rank, came the warrior-nobles; the producers; the menials; and lastly those who had no position in society, hostages, prisoners and those who had lost their ‘civil rights’ through crime.
As with most things Celtic, it is the Greek writers who first record the name Druidae and then not until the second century BC. Diogenes Laertius, a Greek living in the third century AD, quoted the works of more ancient writers, such as Soton of Alexandria (fl. c. 200–170 BC), which discussed the Druids. The name is clearly one of Celtic origin although linguists still battle over its exact meaning. There is popular support for the claims of Strabo and Pliny the Elder that the word was cognate with the Greek word drus, an oak. The Indo-European root is also found in Irish and Welsh as dair and dar. Hence it is thought the word might be dru-uid, oak knowledge. This last uid/wid/vid root is the same as the Sanskrit vid, to know or to see, and is seen in the Hindu Vedas, which means ‘knowledge’, the most ancient religious texts surviving in an Indo-European language. Therefore the idea is that Druid means ‘those whose knowledge is great’.
The classical texts referred to Druids only in Gaul and Britain. Druids are not mentioned as existing among the Cisalpine Celts, the Iberian Celts, the eastern Celts or the Galatian Celts. Neither are the Druids mentioned in connection with Ireland, although, of course, we know that they existed there from subsequent native literature.
Does this mean that the Druids were confined to the Gaulish and British Celts? Some scholars tend to be very literal, and where there is a source, even though written by a hostile witness, it is often accepted without question on the basis of its antiquity.
The answer to the question, of course, depends on what your interpretation of the function of a Druid is. If one accepts that the Druids were an intellectual caste or class, as Caesar lets slip and Dion Chrysostom later spells out, comparing them rightly with the Brahmins of Hindu society, th
en we may argue that Druids or their class equivalent appeared throughout Celtic society. That the Druids encompassed several intellectual fields may certainly be accepted from the evidence.
We also find that the Celts did have specific names for their priests, such as gutuatri meaning ‘speakers (to the gods)’, a Gaulish cognate to the Irish guth, voice. The gutuatri are known from inscriptions and a reference to a gutuatros put to death by Caesar, mentioned in Aulus Hirtius’ addition to the Gallic War. Hirtius was one of Caesar’s lieutenants in Gaul.
Other words are also used to describe the priestly functions, such as antistites, sacerdotes and semnotheoi. The term semnotheoi is preserved by Laertius from Soton and is used as a synonym for a Druid, but perhaps only describing a particular Druidic priestly function.
Several Greek and Latin writers speak of Dryades or Druidesses and the existence of such female Druids is certainly confirmed by native Celtic sources, although the classical sources seem to place more emphasis on male Druids.
The earliest sources on the Druids, written by Greeks, are known only in quotation from the later Alexandrian school; significantly, these sources are respectful of the Druids and, indeed, the Celts in general. We will deal with these shortly but first we must examine those sources by which the Druids have, sadly, become more popularly known: the anti-Celtic writings of the Romans and Romanophiles.
It would appear that the work of Poseidonios (c. 135–c. 50 BC) of Apamea, Syria, was used as the major source material on the Celts of Gaul by all our main pro-Roman writers on the Druids. Therefore, our knowledge of the Druids, in this respect, rests with only one writer. Poseidonios’ work is used by the Alexandrian Greek, Timagenes, c. mid-first century BC; the Roman general, Gaius Julius Caesar (100–44 BC); the Sicilian Greek, Diodorus Siculus (c. 60–c. 21 BC); and the Greek geographer from Pontus, Strabo (64 BC–AD 24). The scholar Alfred Klotz believed that Poseidonios’ work had already been lost by the first century BC and that Timagenes was the intermediary who passed it on by quoting large sections of it. Those quotations are substantially the passages used by all other writers.
A Brief History of the Celts Page 6
