Is modern Druidry helped or hindered by the D word?

[craigen]

As modern Druids, we can some times be caught up by nostalgia of what we assume the pre-roman tribes were like and what they were doing. In January's seminar Giovanna looked at the problems and tensions that can arise between the pagan community and archaeology, and in Febuary's seminar I looked at a historical event and asked if our current Druidic understanding of the event was actually what occurred.

So what I'm intrested in discussing is, are we helped or hindered by the use of the term Druid, or would it have been better if Nuin had chosen a new name for his emerging spirituality?
Would a pre-roman Druid recognise any of our modern evolved practice?
Do we use the term to give our spirituality a sense of legitimacy?
Would we still have the same concerns about archaeology if we used a different name, because actually they are our ancestors?

[Art]

I think it important to note that Nuinn did not spontaneously coin the term but rather saw OBOD as a reform extension of an existing Druid order. The perceived tensions between the Druid community and archeology are primarily generated by the Druids and not those in the archeological camp. Claiming to be direct descendents of any ancient people is a fools errand without solid DNA connections in the base case. There is a radical difference between the implications of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act which deals with currently existing tribal units and remains as opposed to efforts in Europe to show a connection with people two thousand or more years ago.

I do however understand your concern and quite frankly I'm not sure whether or not he should have chosen some other name. I do think that Gardner was fairly dimwitted to call his intiated followers Witches because of the overburden of negativity associated with that term. There again however, Gardner was working with a new fictionalized group while Nichols was working with an offshoot or reformed element of an existing organization. So I guess the bottom line is that it is a toss up.

[Ulchabhán]

I don't think we are hindered at all by the D word. Of course Druidry today is vastly different from the practices and beliefs of the ancient Druids, but then again do people seriously believe that the many varieties of Christianity today, or Judaism or Hinduism are identical to how those religions were conceived and practised millennia ago? 2000 years of human development, cultural change, increased knowledge, technological revolution etc change the entire context in which philosophies, spiritualities and religions exist. No religion, despite what some of its followers like to believe, remains unchanging.

However the ancient Druids and the snippets of information we have about them, did inspired the 'Druid Revival' of a couple of centuries ago, and that itself has developed into the Druidry we know today. OBOD would not really exist without the the druid revival, which itself would not exist if it were not for the existence of the ancient Druids and the preservation, even if not always reliably, of a tiny amount of information regarding their beliefs. We are therefore, in a very real way, connected to those who gathered in groves all those years ago.

I am inspired by the Druids of old, by the 'celtic' cultures they were the custodians of, and find in our Druidry a beautiful, truly valuable, modern spirituality/philosophy which gives meaning to my life here in the 21st century and which gives me a sense of connection with the ancient druids and thousands of years of history.

And I have absolutely no problem with Archaeology or Archaeologists, indeed it is one of the subjects that most interests me.