Celtic Symbols, Celtic Identities:

A Folk Historical Analysis of Symbols in

Celtic Ethnopagan Traditions
Brett H. Furth*

Texas A&M University at Galveston, Department of Liberal Studies, P.O. Box 1675, Galveston,
TX 77553, USA

*bretthfurth@tamu.edu, bretthfurth@gmail.com

Symbols are important cultural expressions that may be circulated through both time and space
as groups appropriate, modify, and ascribe new meanings to them within a larger context of
cultural appropriation and invented tradition. I explore this process by looking at the construction
of religious folk histories and how they related to the use of symbols by different groups of
Celtic Neo-Pagan or “Ethnopagan” traditions in the United States and Britain. Data from print
and electronic sources are analyzed to determine how these Ethnopagans appropriate, reinterpret,
inflate, and conflate ancient Celtic and other European symbols, as well as recently invented
symbols, into their ethnoreligious folk histories and repertoires. This process, including the
appropriation of Celtic identity, is discussed in terms of its potential role in the construction,
marking, legitimization, and validation of these ethnoreligious traditions and identities.

Key words: invented tradition, Neo-paganism, religion, folk history

INTRODUCTION

Research over the past several decades has shown that the theoretical frameworks of “folk

histories” and “invented traditions” can be useful in explaining the processes of constructing and

legitimizing ethno-nationalist identities; however, there appears to be a lacuna in the current

research regarding the related processes of (re)constructing religious folk histories and the

construction of religious identities. The analysis presented here is a preliminary attempt to carry

A version of this paper was presented in a session entitled “Passages of Pilgrims, Nations and
Identities” at the 109th Annual Meeting of American Anthropological Association, New Orleans,
Louisiana, November 18, 2010
the conversation about folk history and invented traditions forward through the application of

these theoretical concepts to the traditions and symbolic systems of two related Eurocentric Neo-

Pagan religious communities: Ár nDraíocht Féin and the Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids.

FOLK HISTORY AND INVENTED TRADITIONS

One theoretical approach that may be useful in analyzing religious understandings and uses of

the past is the concept of folk history first proposed by Charles Hudson in 1966. Hudson sets the

established notion of ethnohistory and the concept of folk history into an etic-emic model that

has the potential to contribute to the anthropological study of history and religion, because they

have fundamentally different research aims, employ different methodologies, and rely on

different criteria. An “ethnohistorical” approach to a society’s view of history is ultimately an

etic one, for which the aim “is to reconstruct, using all available materials, what ‘really

happened’ in terms that agree with our sense of credibility and our sense of relevance” and “to

explain what happened in terms that make sense to us” (1966:54). A “folk historical” approach,

on the other hand, is an emic one, for which the aim is “to find what people in another society

believe ‘really happened,’ as judged by their sense of credibility and relevance” and “to find out

how the members of a society explain why things happened the way they did” (1966:54). The

methodological differences within this dichotomy are demonstrated by Nicholas Gubser’s (1965)

study of the Nunamiut Eskimos. This alternative approach resulted in the revelation that the

Nunamiut have three distinct categories of historical time and that the credibility of events within

those categories are judged based on different emic criteria that differ from those used in a

Western ethnohistorical approach.

  2  
 In other words, whether or not a group’s folk history is (ethno)historically accurate, what

matters to the ethnographer is what the folk group believes, how those beliefs reflect other

crucial aspects of culture, their criteria of validation, and what use those beliefs are to the people

in question. As folklorist Thomas Green phrases it, it is “clear that while a history of a people

may portray what they do, a history by a people explains what they are—or, rather, what they

profess to be” (1976:315; emphasis added).

According to Hudson (1966), a key structural feature of folk history is that history is

refracted by social structure into different emically believed-in versions of history. Furthermore,

this pattern is observable in complex, plural societies. His study of folk histories among the

Catawba Indians and Whites of South Carolina, who had lived together for centuries, revealed

that the Catawba and Whites had quite different versions of folk history in terms of the nature of

the relationship between the two groups through time. This study demonstrates one of the

primary goals of the folk historic approach: by understanding a folk group’s own version of

history, one is better able to reveal underlying agendas and interests of the group. In terms of the

research I propose, this is particularly relevant, as Neo-Pagans in the U.S. and Europe, including

Celtic Ethnopagans, comprise a growing minority religious community emerging within the

larger, predominately Western Christian societies of North America, Europe, and other Western

nations.

Hudson suggests three hypotheses for future research based upon the folk history

theoretical paradigm he proposes. These are 1) societies unaffected by a Western scientific

perception of history will categorize past events into different emic categories of historical time,

and these different emic categories will entail credibility criteria that differ significantly from

those used to construct an etic “universal history” chronology; 2) folk history is refracted into

  3  
different versions in ways that are shaped by critical social variables associated with social

conflict; and 3) folk history and social change will intersect when emerging nations or ethnic

groups seek to “forge a history” (1966:62) based on national or ethnic folkloric elements,

including mythologies, legends, and tales (Fernandez 1966). According to Hudson’s model,

these emergent folk histories will differ from the history promulgated by the politically dominant

group, and they will typically play significant roles in social and political action.

I propose that the idea of a forged history is related to the notion of “invented traditions”

as articulated by Eric Hobsbawm (1983; see also Morgan 1983; Trevor-Roper 1983). Hobsbawm

defines an invented tradition as “a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly

accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and

norms of behavior by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past. In fact,

where possible, they normally attempt to establish continuity with a suitable historic past”

(1983:1). Hobsbawm argues recently created or (re)constructed traditions that are believed to be

ancient, and the selective reinterpretation of the past- often by the intellectual elites- are a

common feature of Romantic nationalism and nation-building (1983; see also Eriksen 1993:72,

78-96). Forged histories may also be a feature of revitalization movements, in which group

members “imagine themselves as old and glorify presumably ancient handicrafts, rituals or other

cultural practices” (Eriksen 1993:86).

Green (1976) offers an ethnographic example of how a folk history and other invented

traditions may be used strategically by marginalized groups. He demonstrates how the Tigua of

Ysleta del Sur (now in El Paso, Texas) have constructed a folk history they use to show

themselves to themselves as 1) brave people who have a history that shows them how to resist

domination by Europeans (and, by implication, white American culture), and 2) having a much

  4  
older claim to their territory than the ethnohistory describes. Green argues the Tigua were

motivated to nativism by the perception that their cultural integrity was threatened, and they had

only folk history to use as a basis of their movement. For most Tigua, “oral tradition at this time

centers upon their claims on and rights to the land they inhabit. Oral tradition, at least in the

present situation, is not isolated then, but arises, is renewed, and addresses itself to current

tensions” (Green 1976:313). This case study highlights how a group’s folk history is used to

explain their current situation, and to offer a “traditional” model for how to address their present

concerns. Jonathan Friedman (1992) similarly explains how modern Greeks and Hawaiians have

constructed folk histories and used them to legitimize ethno-nationalist identities. In addition, I

believe this definition should include the emic understanding that the group’s system of beliefs is

also ancient, and therefore perceived by the folk group as legitimate.

These processes often involve the appropriation of symbols taken from the past. The

appropriation of something in this sense is the “active, subjective, and motivated” taking of it

(Ashley and Plesch 2002:2). What is most important about appropriation, in this case, the

constructed past itself and symbols of that past, is that it is the gaining of power over something

(Ashley and Plesch 2002:2), although that power is not necessarily total. This is because, as Igor

Kopytoff has argued, “that which is significant about the adoption of alien objects- of alien

ideas- is not the fact that they are adopted, but the way they are culturally redefined and put into

use” (1986:67). This is because material culture is a symbolic language that can be strategically

appropriated to serve individual or group agendas, including the communication of identities

(Millett 1990; Wells 1998).

I propose the process of entering a religious tradition- in this case, an Ethnopagan one- is

one that includes at least partially acquiring and accepting a (re)constructed folk history. This

  5  
appears to be a new application of Hudson’s folk historical approach, as folk history has

previously been applied to ethnic groups in which all members acquire folk histories through the

process of enculturation. Green’s (1997) Recent research into historical narrative in the martial

arts demonstrates how the related analytical concepts of invented traditions and folk histories

may be applied to smaller folk groups, in this case, practitioners of the Won Hop Loong Chuan

martial arts tradition in the United States, who ‘buy into’ the group’s folk history as they become

members of the group. I propose this model can equally be applied to many religious groups

around the world, old and new, to which members may convert.

ÁR NDRAIOCHT FEIN AND THE ORDER OF BARDS, OVATES, AND DRUIDS

From an ethnohistoric view, Ár nDraíocht Féin (ADF), which is Irish for “Our Own Druidism,”

and the Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids (OBOD) are both recent Ethnopagan Druid

traditions. This view is shared by John Michael Greer, who joined OBOD in 1995, and then left

to join ADF in 2001:

Neither group is descended from the original ancient Druids… All modern Druid groups-
OBOD, ADF, and everyone else- were invented in the last three centuries by people who
used some mix of scholarly writings, personal spiritual insight, speculation, and sheer
fantasy as raw material for their concoctions… Thus if ‘real Druidry’ is defined as the
sort that was practiced by Druids in Celtic countries before the arrival of Christianity, all
modern Druids practice fake Druidry. (Greer 2004)

This general perspective that no modern Druid sects practice some sort of unaltered, “pure”

Druidism or Druidry is supported by other data from ADF and OBOD foundational sources (e.g.,

Bonewits 2006; Carr-Gomm 2002). (“Druidism” and “Druidry” are often used interchangeably

within the Neo-Pagan community, as they are here.)

  6  
 ADF was officially formed by Isaac Bonewits (who passed away August, 2010) in 1983

as an offshoot from the Reformed Druids of North America (RDNA), which itself emerged in the

1960s in the United States (Bonewits 1996; 2006). OBOD emerged when Ross Nichols left the

Ancient Druid Order, a fraternal British organization formed in the early 20th century, to form a

new Druid organization in 1964 based on the idea of Druidism as an initiatory “spiritual path”

compatible with many different religious systems (Carr-Gomm 2002:41; 2006a). The recent

histories of both groups are not in question; rather, it is how their folk histories and continuity

with those versions of the past are understood by ADF and OBOD Druids, based on different

emic criteria, and how those folk histories serve the needs and agendas of each group.

STUDY METHODOLOGY

Following Pizza’s (2009) and Gardell’s (2003) methods of archival and literary analysis, I

collected and analyzed data from online sources written by and about the Neo-Pagan traditions

represented in this study. I particularly attend to materials relating to Ár nDraíocht Féin (ADF)

and the British organization, the Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids (OBOD), including analyses

of information about ADF and OBOD theology and practice on the organizations’ websites

(adf.org and druidry.org) and texts published by ADF and OBOD members on those websites.

For this project, I pay particular attention to the criteria by which each tradition has

(re)constructed its own folk history. I also focus on emblematic symbols within the two

traditions to explore how symbols from the past may be appropriated, inscribed, and otherwise

modified as part of the processes of (re)constructing Celtic Ethnopagan folk histories, and if

possible, identities.

  7  
 Collecting and analyzing digital data has several practical and methodological strengths

and weaknesses (Coco and Woodward 2007; Cowan 2005). While the use of digital ethnographic

methods has the inevitable potential for selection bias, it allows practical but non-intrusive

research into “hidden” Neo-Pagan communities (Berger, Leach, and Shaffer 2003:xvii), and as

such, follows Douglas Heckathorn’s (1997) argument that alternative methods of social research

are often necessary when studying members of hidden populations. This method is also justified

because the Internet has also become a primary venue for disseminating materials about Neo-

Pagan beliefs and practices and exchanging intra- and inter-Neo-Pagan communication about

their traditions and identities, as well as reaching potential converts (Arthur 2008; Coco and

Woodward 2007; Cowan 2005).

The need to be cautious with relying exclusively on such data, however, was reaffirmed

in a conversation with Mathcar (a pseudonym), an ADF Druid member. Mathcar informed me

that the online documents about ADF’s history, beliefs, and practices on the ADF website “are

historical documents that do not necessarily reflect the current thoughts or beliefs of ADF. They

are definitely foundational. They’re definitely where we came from. Some of those positions we

don’t necessarily hold anymore” (Mathcar, personal communication, November 10, 2010). This

precaution highlights that the data used in this study are primarily informative about ADF and

OBOD quasi-official folk histories, and that any interpretations based on them do not necessarily

reflect how members view their traditions’ folk histories and symbols.

  8  
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

ADF Folk History

According to Isaac Bonewits, the founder of ADF, ancient “Druidism” was a polymorphic

religious system held by Bronze Age and then later Iron Age Indo-Europeans. At the founding of

ADF in 1983, he set out the parameters of this new kind of Druidism: It would be “a brand new

form of Druidism, not just Pan-Celtic, but Pan-European. [By this latter term, I mean to include

all of the European branches of the Indo-European culture and language tree]” (Bonewits 1996).

In the ADF folk history presented by Bonewits (1984), technologically-superior Bronze Age

Proto-Indo-European-speaking peoples emerged in the Caucasus region around 4,000 BCE and

began spreading across Europe, where “pre-Indo-European” Neolithic peoples lived. These

related Indo-European cultures dominated Europe, India, and parts of the Near East, where they

developed “high religions” during the Iron Age, especially in the Celtic world. These religions,

however, were “destroyed or driven completely underground” through “the successful genocide

campaigns waged against the Druids” by the 7th century CE, leaving only fragments in Wales

and Ireland that “seem to have survived in disguise through the institutions of the Celtic Church

and of the Bards and Poets” (Bonewits 1984).

Modern ADF Druids aim to reconstruct, as best as possible, the beliefs and practices of

ancient Indo-European cultures. As Bonewits stated in 1983, “It would be based on the best

scholarly research available, combined with what has been learned [about art, psychology, small

group politics and economics] through the theory and practice of modern Neopaganism,” as well

as on his personal religious and magical knowledge (Bonewits 1996). ADF, in Bonewits’ view,

would be founded on “solid (but imaginative) scholarship” and would reject as legitimate

sources the 18th and 19th-century scholarship that forms the basis of OBOD’s form of Druidism,

  9  
especially the works of the 18th-century mason, Unitarian, antiquarian, Druid Revivalist, and

literary forger Iolo Morganwg and the mythic, poetic works of Robert Graves’ White Goddess,

published in the 1940s. ADF Druid tradition and identity appear, therefore, to be constructed in a

relational process; i.e., defined by what it is not. For example, Bonewits and other ADF Druids

explicitly define themselves, their folk history, and their traditions in opposition to many of the

key beliefs of OBOD Druidism. In particular, they reject the ideas that Druids may have

originated from Atlantis, were some kind of ‘proto-Freemasons’ and ‘pre-Christian’ monotheists,

and that they built megaliths, such as New Grange and Stonehenge (Bonewits 1984), all of which

are components of the OBOD folk history (Carr-Gomm 2002:14-16, 21-22, 28-35; 2006b).

When there are gaps in the scholarship, however, they will be filled in with “our own

imagination, spiritual visions and/or borrowings from non-IE sources, but always in full

awareness of what we are doing (and with full documentation of the process)” (Bonewits 1996).

For example, Bonewits suggested in 1984 that Baltic and Russian folklore, which he believed

had been less affected by Christianization, “when combined with the Vedic and Old Irish

sources, may give us most of the missing links necessary to reconstruct Paleo-pagan [i.e., Iron

Age] European Druidism” (Bonewits 1984).

Rev. John "Fox" Adelmann, an Archdruid Emeritus of ADF, describes how the criteria

for (re)constructing ADF’s folk history are related to the goal of ADF: “To gain a clearer

understanding of our cosmological heritage we must attempt to identify and remove these

external influences of late history to reveal a functional and internally consistent world view.

While we can not hold out much hope for a truly precise picture of our ancestors' beliefs, these

efforts will carry us much closer to that goal” (Fox 1995). ADF Druid John Greer makes a

similar claim: “ADF takes pride in the scholarly basis for its Druidry. Any element of ADF

  10  
practice that can’t be supported by at least some bit of current scholarship in the field of

comparative Indo-European religion faces constant challenge from within the organization”

(Greer 2004). Herein lies the central criterion for the basis upon which the ADF Druids construct

their folk history based on the use of current ethnohistorical scholarship. In a similar vein, ADF

concepts about Druid beliefs and practices are informed whenever possible by creative

appropriations of current scholarship. For example, “hard polytheism” (Dangler 2010) with

distinct- albeit European-specific- deities is a core religious tenant because of ethnohistorical

evidence that “the Ancient Druids were polytheists rather than mono- or duotheists (Bonewits

1996; see also Corrigan 2010a; 2010b; Serith 2003). This focus on polytheism highlights how

ADF folk history- and potentially the identities of members based on that folk history- is

constructed in relation to other dominant religions, as the Abrahamic religions are monotheistic;

but also in relation to OBOD, which includes monotheists (below), and in relation to Wicca,

which is generally duotheistic.

OBOD Folk History

The folk history presented by Philip Carr-Gomm, who became the head of OBOD in the 1980s,

is emically rooted directly in the Upper Palaeolithic in Western Europe and in the Neolithic and

Bronze Age cultures that produced megaliths along the Atlantic Fringe (OBOD 2010a). Carr-

Gomm breaks down the OBOD folk history into four main periods: 1) the “prehistoric period,”

which lasts from the Upper Palaeolithic through the Bronze Age along the Atlantic Fringe; 2) the

“historic period” or late Iron Age; 3) the “Christian period” (early Medieval to 16th century); 4)

and the period of British and French Celtic nationalist “Druid Revivals” or the 18th century until

the present (Carr-Gomm 2006b; OBOD 2010a). Following the OBOD criteria for the

  11  
(re)construction of folk history, which centers on OBOD being an initiatory mystery tradition,

the Upper Palaeolithic cave paintings from Lascaux Cave, France, the Neolithic and Bronze Age

sites of Stonehenge in England and Newgrange in Ireland, Greco-Roman written sources, and

later Christianized writings, such as early mediaeval Irish Brehon law texts and the later

mediaeval Welsh Mabinogion are all acceptable sources for (re)constructing Druid beliefs and

practices from an OBOD perspective (Carr-Gomm 2002:18-20; 2006b).

As OBOD centers much of its belief system and ritual practices on megalithic structures

(Carr-Gomm 2002:106-135; 2006b), its folk history primarily relies on 18th and 19th-century

scholarship, such as the now-discredited writings of the antiquarians William Stukeley (1687-

1765) and Edward Williams (a.k.a. Iolo Morganwg) (1747-1826) that accredited the construction

and use of the megaliths to the Celts, recent scholarship that remains debated by archaeologists,

and pseudo-archaeology, such as John Michell’s pseudo-scientific work, A Little History of

Astro-Archaeology (1977). This is seen in Carr-Gomm’s argument for reconnecting the ancient

British Druids with megaliths, particularly Stonehenge, which he justifies by quoting John

Michell’s statement that “science restored the Druids to their old temple, Stonehenge, wiser and

more venerable than before” (quoted in Carr-Gomm 2006b). He acknowledges that most

scholars reject the idea that there was any significant continuity between the cultures that

constructed megaliths along the Atlantic Fringe and the Iron Age British Celts; however, he

highlights scholarship from the 1960s and 1970s that suggest such continuity, even though those

claims are now largely discredited by the scientific community. Carr-Gomm also vaguely refers

to more recent research that suggests the British Celts were actually Celticized Bronze Age

peoples, which is argued by Simon James (1999:137-138; see also Furth 2004). Here we see the

criteria by which OBOD constructs its folk history. They appear to favor the appropriation of a

  12  
version of ethnohistory that, in Hobsbawm’s terms, ‘suits’ the folk history upon which the

tradition is (re)constructed. These data also suggest that those versions of ethnohistory portray

the Iron Age Druids as spiritual descendants of the Neolithic and Bronze Age “Proto-Druids”

(Carr-Gomm 2002:22). These data reveal the contentious relationship OBOD has with current

scholarship. They also make it clear that the OBOD criteria for its folk history are more

explicitly open to research that “makes it possible” to tie Stonehenge and other stones to Celtic

Druids, and thus to their own practices and beliefs. In following their criteria for constructing the

OBOD folk history, Classical references to “the darker side of Druidism” (Carr-Gomm 2006b)

are ignored, while only those sources that present the ancient Druids as “wise sages” are

accepted.

The inclusion of works by the 18-century Celtic revivalist Iolo Morganwg is a

particularly pivotal point of contention between ADF and OBOD, and it gets at the very heart of

the difference in folk history between the two, with ADF relying on recent scholarship, and

OBOD relying on many other sources. Speaking of Morganwg, Carr-Gomm says, “even though

no expert in Welsh literature now believes that Morganwg drew on any pre-existing tradition, an

increasing number are coming to respect and celebrate him as an original genius. He is now seen

both as a literary fraudster and as a social reformer with a positive legacy that continues to this

day” (Carr-Gomm 2006c). This suggests that, by OBOD criteria, the fact that Morganwg is now

seen as a literary fraud from an ethnohistorical view is largely inconsequential because

Morganwg was inspired by his knowledge of Welsh folklore and literature. He continues, saying,

“In Britain and France, much of Druidry as a spiritual path has evolved as a result of

Morganwg's influence, and many groups continue to use at least some of his material, while

recognising its history—justifying its use on the pragmatic grounds that it has been in use for two

  13  
hundred years, and has, in this sense, become traditional” (Carr-Gomm 2006c). Based on

OBOD’s folk history criteria, the fact that Morganwg was inspired by Celtic folklore, and the

fact that many revivalist groups, such as OBOD and its predecessor, the Ancient Druid Order,

have built workable spiritual traditions based on his work is sufficient for its acceptance within

the OBOD folk history.

The criteria used to forge the folk history of OBOD are best seen in Carr-Gomm’s final

judgment on the historicity of their primary sources in his work, Druid Mysteries: “Whether we

believe Druidry’s origins lie in the spiritual world, in the temples of Atlantis, the rites of the

Dravidians, or the gradual merging of Indo-European and Stone-Age cultures in western Europe,

we can be sure that its roots stretch far and deep” (Carr-Gomm 2002:26). This use of the past is

also expressed by Carr-Gomm when he says, “After two centuries of an ambivalent history,

Druidism has finally emerged over the last forty years, to offer a spiritual way that genuinely

draws on an ancient heritage for inspiration, whilst making no claim to be identical to the

Druidism that was practised two thousand years ago” (Carr-Gomm 2006c). He also qualifies this

ambiguous relationship with the past-as-given-by-scholars, saying, “Whether Druidry's roots are

indeed so exotic, or whether the historical understanding that Druidism evolved in the British

Isles about 2,500 years ago is correct, the current revival of interest in Druidism depends not so

much upon the ancient past as upon very recent history” (Carr-Gomm 2006c).

These data suggest that the primary folk historic criterion in OBOD is that a source only

be rooted in the past, but not in any particular version of the past. On the other hand, there

appears to be a preference for a version that ties Celtic Druids to Neolithic or Bronze Age

megaliths. Carr-Gomm justifies these criteria based on the premise that it is useless to try to

discover a “‘true and original’ version of a religion or spiritual tradition (Carr-Gomm 2006b).

  14  
OBOD members, in his view, are not “seeking purity or a mythic ‘original form’” of Druidism;

rather, they “are practising instead something that is natural and growing, and that is relevant to

our needs today, not yesterday” (Carr-Gomm 2002:106-107). This indicates it is the more recent

past—specifically from the Druid Revival period onwards—that is most central in OBOD’s

construction of their folk historic past.

ADF Symbolism

Speaking of the role of symbols as identity and membership markers in ADF, Bonewits said,

“One of the many reasons why people join organizations and movements is to gain a sense of

belonging, of having a family of others who share their worldview. To this end, most groups use

certain images as signs of membership” (Bonewits 2005 [1985]). According to Bonewits, “These

shared symbols of identity help to create the psychological, social and psychic connections so

necessary for effective group action” (Bonewits 2005 [1985]). The data suggest two of the most

emblematic symbols used to mark identity in ADF are the Druid Sigil and the ADF logo.

Interestingly, these symbols do not appear to be deeply rooted in ADF folk history.

Figure 1. Druid Sigil Pendant. (Bonewits and Bonewits 2009)

The Druid Sigil is usually shown as a circle with two vertical lines through it on each side

(Figure 1). Bonewits was clear that the origins of this symbol are unclear. It was first clearly

  15  
associated with Druidism by David Fisher, the founder of the Reformed Druids of North

America (from which ADF originated) in 1963. Fisher claimed it was a Druid symbol

representing the Earth Mother. Some say Fisher was inspired by a picture in Piggott’s The

Druids, in which there was a picture of a Romano-Celtic temple; others claim he appropriated it

from a “Mesopagan” (i.e., Druid Revival) Druid group in which he may have been a member.

Demonstrating just how little Indo-European reconstruction may actually matter regarding the

origins of ADF symbolism, Bonewits stated that the origins of the symbol is not particularly

relevant, only that he has found the symbol to be a useful “magical sign” for blessing and

banishing. Keeping in mind the perceived Indo-European focus of ADF, individual “groves” or

congregations sometimes adapt the symbol to reflect their congregations’ identity, such as the

Mugwort Grove’s addition of a sprig of mugwort in the center of the logo (Bonewits 2005

[1985]). A silver pendant version of this symbol has been crafted based on Bonewits’ version

(Figure 1). This pendant is available for purchase and is worn by many ADF members, as well as

other kinds of Druids, indicating that despite it’s vague folk historic origins, it continues to serve

as a symbol of ADF Druid identity (Bonewits 2005 [1985]; Bonewits and Bonewits 2009).

Figure 2. McEwen Crest and Original ADF Logo. (Bonewits 2005 [1985])

The data about the ADF logo (Figure 3) suggest this symbol ties directly into the group’s

folk history and highlights how ADF Druids appropriate, modify, and give new meanings to

  16  
symbols from the Celtic past. This symbol appears on ADF.org, the home webpage of the for the

ADF organization. Bonewits was inspired by the historic crest of the Scottish MacEwen clan

(Figure 2) and explicitly appropriated the symbol. There is no indication given in the available

data that Bonewits descended from that clan. The MacEwen crest shows a tree stump with a new

shoot with five leaves growing from it, and the motto is “Reviresco,” meaning “We (re)grow

green” (Bonewits 2005 [1985]). Bonewits had the artist, Nybor, design the original ADF logo

(Figure 2) in the early 1980s based on his reinterpretation of the symbol.

Figure 3. Modern ADF Logo. (Bonewits 2005 [1985])

Based on Bonewits’ original design, “the axe marks in Nybor’s original rendition made it

clear that the tree of Druidism, like that of the MacEwen clan, was reviving after having been

deliberately chopped down. Nybor added the interlacing to show that, although ADF is a Pan-

Indo-European tradition, ’we have Celtic roots’” (Bonewits 2005 [1985]). Interestingly,

Bonewits first had the ADF lettering was in a Celtic font; however, in 1986, he decided to

change it to Zapf Chancery font because it gave it “a generic European feel, since we were

already receiving complaints that ADF was ‘too Irish” (Bonewits 2005 [1985]). In 1993, he

modified the design, giving it twenty-five leaves, and suggested adding more leaves and

  17  
branches, as well as new seedlings around the trunk, over the years to reflect the growth and

maturation of ADF.

OBOD Symbolism

The symbolism used by OBOD appears to center on the Awen and megalithic stone circles, as

well a suite of divinatory symbols. The data indicate these symbols are deeply embedded within

the folk historical framework developed within the OBOD tradition. There are many symbolic

divinatory systems available for use within OBOD (see Carr-Gomm 2002:174 for a suggested

list); however, here I discuss only the Druid Animal Oracle developed by Philip and Stephanie

Carr-Gomm.

Figure 5. OBOD Banner Showing Awen (www.druidry.org)

The Awen symbol is often shown as three radiating lines with a dot or acorn on top of

each ray within one or three circles. It is the primary emblem of OBOD Druidism, appearing on

the website’s banner (Figure 5; Druidry.org). It is also sold as jewelry, such as pendants

(Bonewits and Bonewits 2009), and may be included in a grove’s name, such as the Awen Grove

(Solaren 2009). Philip Carr-Gomm defines the term Awen as the Welsh word for “inspiration,”

which he interprets as “the gift or blessing of the gods generally, or the goddess Cerridwen,

Patroness of the Bards, specifically” (2002:175). Drawing from Welsh mythology and the

writings of the mason and Welsh fraudster, Iolo Morganwg’s writings about the symbol

(Williams Ab Ithel 1862:51), OBOD Druidess Katinka Broc’h says the Awen originates in

  18  
Welsh folklore, relates to the “secret name of God,” and refers to “inspiration and soul as well”

(Broc’h 2010; see also Serenwen 2010). On a trip to Ireland in 2004, I personally took a

photograph of a very similar symbol (Figure 6) inscribed on Matthew Bridge in Limerick, which

was constructed in 1844 according to the inscription on the bridge, was constructed in 1844.

While no explanation of the symbol was given, this may be an example of cross-pollination

between Freemasons in Ireland and Druid Revivalists of the period according to Philip Carr-

Gomm’s account (2006b).

Figure 6. Photograph taken at the Matthew Bridge,

Limerick, Ireland (photograph taken by author, 2004).

In the OBOD tradition, megaliths, especially megalithic circles, are seen as particularly

sacred. This is partially based on ethnohistorical scholarship suggesting that “many of the stones

in the stone circles are positioned so that they act as time-stones - marking the rising or setting of

the mid-winter or mid-summer sun, for example” (Carr-Gomm 2002:117). Here we see a crucial

connection to the notion of Iron Age Druids being connected to megalithic stone circles as

established within the OBOD folk history.

  19  
 Figure 7. After the dawn OBOD ritual at Stonehenge, England,
June 2006 (Geal-Darach Grove 2010.)

Philip Carr-Gomm also says the megalithic structures are associated with the ancestors,

saying, “We know that ancestor-worship was a key component of Druidic practice. We can be

sure of this because of the archaeological evidence of the megalithic culture - which lies at the

foundations of Druidry. Anthropological studies also show us that reverence for the ancestors is

a key component in nearly all religious and shamanic practices” (Carr-Gomm 2002:109).

Information gleaned from archeology and pseudo-archaeology about megalithic and Celtic

cultures is collapsed and appropriated to give a folk historical origins of the Druid “shaman-

priests” being associated with Neolithic and Bronze Age sites. In the OBOD tradition, the

ancestors are symbolically located in space in terms of the megaliths, as Carr-Gomm says, “the

place of the Ancestors lies in the North-West - the place of the setting of the Mid-Summer sun

and the place of Samhuinn (the Scottish Gaelic term for the folkloric Celtic New Year)—when

we celebrate our connection with this ancestral realm. Symbolically, or metaphorically, we can

call this influence on our identity, on who we are today, the Spirit of the Ancestors—a Spirit

which connects us to who we are as genetic beings” (Carr-Gomm 2002:110).

Emma Orr, an OBOD Druidess, was heavily involved with the political negotiations of

the 1980s and 1990s over Neo-Pagan access and use of Stonehenge for OBOD rituals (Orr

1996). For years she has gone to visit the “temple” of Stonehenge to revere the anima loci or the

  20  
‘spirit of place,’ the ancestors, and her deities with the goal of reestablishing “a bond of trust

between them and us once more” (Orr 1996). In these cases, ancestors are associated with

megaliths in the landscape as framed within the OBOD folk history that associates ancient

Druids with megalithic culture. The perspective provided by Emma Orr also suggests the focus

on megalithic sites within the tradition’s folk history also inspires some OBOD Druids to make

pilgrimages to those sites for ritual and to connect spiritually with ancestors (e.g., Figures 7, 8).

Figure 8. OBOD Druids on Pilgrimage to Glastonbury Tor, England,

June 2006 (Geal-Darach Grove 2010.)

Megaliths in the British Isles are also associated with the notion of sacred landscape in

the OBOD tradition. This perspective is founded on the folk historical view that “in ancient

times, although the whole earth was undoubtedly considered sacred, particular points on its

surface were clearly felt to be especially connected to certain aspects of divine power. For this

reason these special spots were honoured with sacred circles of stone—with avenues or groves of

trees, with monuments and with ritual” (Carr-Gomm 2002:114-115). This belief is directly tied

to both pilgrimage and the symbolic meanings ascribed by OBOD Druids to archaeological and

natural features in the landscape. As Philip Carr-Gomm says, “The acknowledgement of the

sacredness of the landscape is a central feature of modern Druidry—we visit sacred sites, walk

  21  
the ancient tracks, attune to the different earth-energies and landscape temples, and open

ourselves to the teaching and inspiration that comes when we commune with nature (Carr-Gomm

2002:115). OBOD hosts annual camps near the White Horse of Uffington in Oxfordshire,

England, as well as retreats at Glastonbury, which Druids sometimes refer to as Avalon, and on

“the sacred island of Iona in Scotland – an island that was once called Isla na Druidneach—the

Isle of the Druids” (Carr-Gomm 2002:115). Some OBOD Druids also go on pilgrimages to

Glastonbury Tor, Somerset, England, which many associated with the mythical Avalon of

Arthurian legend (Figure 8). Certain places in the landscape, including megalithic stone circles

and natural phenomena “were and are considered sacred and were and are the goal of conscious,

dedicatory pilgrimage” for some OBOD Druids (Carr-Gomm 2002:116). Such pilgrims “are

engaging in an age-old activity which honours the Spirit of Place. They make pilgrimages to holy

sites” (Carr-Gomm 2002:116).

The Druid Animal Oracle is a divination system invented by Philip and Stephanie Carr-

Gomm that is available for purchase by the public (Carr-Gomm and Carr-Gomm 1994). The

Carr-Gomms describe the tradition underlying this divination set as a tradition “that existed well

before the advent of Christianity, is made up of many strands—Saxon, Norse, Greek and Roman

amongst others—but prior even to these, the native Celtic and Druidic beliefs and practices lie at

its foundations” (Carr-Gomm and Carr-Gomm 1994:4). They also claim “the knowledge of

animal powers has by no means been lost- it has simply been neglected and forgotten. The

material set down here does not represent our ideas about the animals or what they can bring us,

instead it represents a part of that which the indigenous Celtic and Druidic tradition has gifted us

through more than 7,000 years of experience and learning” (Carr-Gomm and Carr-Gomm

1994:6).

  22  
 The Druid Animal Oracle, a set of which I personally own and have used as an insider,

comes with the set of 32 divinatory cards. The passage for each of the cards— 28 of

domesticated and wild animals, and 4 dragons—follows a uniform format: It begins with a

picture of the card with the English name next to it, then the Scottish Gaelic name for the animal

follows. Next are key terms of the divinatory meanings, a description of the images and symbols

on the card, and more detailed descriptions of the divinatory meanings. Next, “the Tradition” of

the animal is explained through references to ethnohistorical Celtic archaeology, history,

folklore, and Arthurian legend.

Figure 9. Stag Card (Carr-Gomm and Carr-Gomm 1994:26)

As an example of how OBOD folk history is intertwined with (re)constructed symbolism

in this divination set, I present here information about the third card in the set, the Stag, or Damh

in Scottish Gaelic (Figure 9; Carr-Gomm and Carr-Gomm 1994:26-29). The Stag’s divinatory

meanings are pride, independence, fertility, and purification. The card shows a majestic stag

framed by birch trees, which are associated with new beginnings in OBOD’s version of the

Ogham system (Carr-Gomm 2002:141-143); this is because “the stag is a creature from the

beginning of Time” (Carr-Gomm and Carr-Gomm 1994:26). The stone to the left shows a carved

  23  
representation of the horned male figure from the Gundestrup Cauldron. The herbs in the image

are plants with folkloric names that refer to deer. The “Tradition” passage for this card begins

with the quote, “I am a stag of seven tines,” which is taken from The Song of Amergin, a famous

poem from early Irish literature. Traditional information is drawn from Welsh mythology,

Arthurian legend, archaeological information about deer skulls from the Mesolithic site of Star

Carr in Yorkshire, England, dated to around 9,500 years ago. The authors also draw inspiration

from the “Celtic cauldron” from Gundestrup, Denmark, which the Carr-Gomm say depicts the

horned Celtic god Cernunnos or a “Celtic shaman wearing such an antlered headdress” (Carr-

Gomm 1994:29). In following the broad folk criteria for (re)constructing symbolic meanings,

these data suggest OBOD Druids—or at least Philip Carr-Gomm—ascribe meanings to this

animal by referencing archaeological and folkloric European horned figures, from the pan-Celtic

god Cernunnos to the legendary British figures of Herne the Hunter, the Lord of the Wild Hunt,

the King of Faery, and Merlin. The authors also draw from more recent British folklore by

inferring meanings of the stag based on antlered figures from current legend and folklore, such as

the performances of the English Abbots Bromley Horn Dancers, who dance in public with

antlered headdresses.

ADF and OBOD Traditions: Folk Historical Authentication and Validation

In order to look at the issue of religious folk history in a new way, I propose taking a cue from

ADF Druid and ex-OBOD Druid John Greer and applying Richard de Mille’s model for

determining “truth at work in discussions of spiritual traditions” (Greer 2004). In his critique the

controversial anthropologist Carlos Castaneda fabulous account of the Yaqui shaman Don Juan

Matus, De Mille (1976, 1990) distinguishes between “validity” and “authenticity.” Validity in

  24  
this model “refers to the correspondence between the content of a scientific report and some

established background of theory and recorded observation. A report is judged valid when it

agrees with what we think we know” (De Mille 1990:232). In other words, a work is “valid” if it

fits the world-as-understood by the group in question (in his case, the scientific community).

According to De Mille (1990:237), a written work is valid if it is what it claims to be; therefore,

a work of fiction is valid if it follows the socially agreed upon criteria of fiction, no matter how

realistic the work is. Authenticity “refers to the provenance of the report. Did it arise from the

persons, places, and procedures it describes?” (De Mille 1990:232). A work is “authentic” if the

account given is historically accurate based on scientific, ethnohistorical criteria. The category in

which a work falls thus depends upon two criteria: 1) the degree to which it is consistent with

what it claims to be (i.e., validity), and 2) the degree to which it is historically accurate (i.e.,

authenticity).

My analyses of data from the ADF and OBOD sources indicate both folk histories are

what they claim to be—histories of a tradition (re)constructed in ways that serve the needs and

agenda of the group in the present; therefore, each is valid in De Mille’s terms. Each group seeks

to root itself in the past, give meaning and order to the present tradition, and provide a sense of

direction for the future. On the other hand, while the criteria used by each group—or at least the

authorities of each group—in constructing the tradition’s folk history draw from scholarship to

varying degrees, neither would achieve authenticity in De Mille’s model. This is because, despite

efforts to draw from ethnohistorical sources (old or new), both groups are selective about which

parts of ethnohistory they find acceptable and unacceptable based on the interests of the group.

This is also because each group explicitly, creatively adapts its (re)constructed past to serve the

needs of the group’s members in the present.

  25  
 The message that comes through from the ADF data is that ADF members—or at least

authorities in that community—seek to reconstruct a tradition that mirrors the tradition of the

Iron Age Druids as closely as possible; yet they acknowledge that they are often limited in

sources they deem valid based on their folk historical criteria, and that they live in a different

historical context than the Iron Age Druids, and so must adapt their tradition. The examples of

the ADF emblems, the Druid Sigil and the ADF logo, highlights that ADF Druids, including the

founder, Isaac Bonewits, may be quite willing to accept symbols inspired from the past, but not

particularly “authenticated” by ethnohistorical sources.

The ADF logo example is particularly salient, as no folk history per-se is given for it;

rather, only a list of ‘possible’ origins is offered. Based on Bonewits’ statements, the logo itself

is clearly a modern, creative adaptation of a historical Scottish clan emblem with no

ethnohistorical authentication in terms of the Iron Age Celtic symbolic repertoire. Looking at the

data concerning ADF symbols, it seems ADF authorities and other members draw from the past

as produced by current ethnohistorical scholars as much as they deem feasible and appropriate,

and then adapt that past to their current lives in a way that is considered both authentic and valid

based on their criteria for validity and authenticity. With the appropriation and modification of

the ADF logo’s design and meaning, we see an example of how folk symbols, like folk histories,

are (re)constructed to serve the interests or agenda of the group (re)constructing them. In this

case, Bonewits specifically wanted the emblem of ADF 1) to have some roots in the Celtic past,

2) to reflect the pan-Indo-European agenda of ADF, and 3) to symbolize the identity and growth

of ADF in both the present and the future. He succeeded in all three goals through creative

appropriation and the inscription of symbolic meanings.

  26  
 OBOD authorities present different and possibly more complicated criteria for

constructing and validating their tradition’s folk history and symbolic repertoire. In this case, the

data suggest these criteria center on 18th and 19th-century scholarship that developed in tandem

with the emergence and growth of the British Romantic Druid Revival. From the OBOD folk

historical view, however, this is the time period from which OBOD members draw both validity

and authenticity. In other words, their folk history, symbols, and tradition have existed in some

form for over 200 years, which, by OBOD criteria, are sufficient to provide authenticity. It is

emically consistent that the Awen, which is generally attributed by ethnohistorians to the

inventiveness of Iolo Morganwg during the early Druid Revival, should be the primary emblem

of OBOD Druidism. These criteria also center on a tradition that members consider a “spiritual

path,” rather than a religion, that is meant to be compatible with many other religious traditions

and identities.

The association with the Neolithic cultures that produced the megalithic structures that

feature so prominently in the OBOD folk history suggests a contentious relationship with

ethnohistory. While some recent scholars, such as Simon James (1999:137-138), argue the Iron

Age Britons were actually Celticized Bronze Age peoples, there is little ethnohistorical support

for the notion that Druidic tradition of Iron Age Britain directly originated from that of the

cultures that produced the megalithic structures in Britain as claimed by early antiquarians, such

as William Stukeley and Iolo Morganwg. In some instances, the OBOD data suggest this link to

the builders of sites such as Stonehenge and Newgrange is not necessary according to OBOD’s

folk historical criteria. For example, Philip Carr-Gomm explicitly acknowledges that

Morganwg’s works—the very origins of the Awen symbol—have been deemed fraudulent by

recent scholarship (i.e., according to ethnohistorical criteria). Carr-Gomm himself points out that

  27  
most recent scholars reject the idea of continuity to pre-Iron Age periods (the ethnohistorical

view); yet in other instances, he appears to find validation for this link in the folk history by

drawing on the few recent scholarly works that emphasize continuity between the pre-Iron Age

cultures of Britain and the British Iron Age Celts. These findings suggest that OBOD Druids may

have an interest rooting their tradition—at least to some degree—in the ancient Neolithic and

Bronze Age past when megalithic structures were built.

From the folk historical perspective, OBOD’s folk history and associated symbols are

equally valid and authentic, as the elements incorporated into the OBOD folk history meet that

group’s criteria, and therefore they ‘fit’ what the group knows about the world. Their criteria

used are much more open than those of ADF. The data presented here suggest ADF Druids may

focus on the (re)construction of Indo-European beliefs and practices, while OBOD Druids may

focus on a much broader range of (re)constructions of the ancient past, from Upper Palaeolithic

cave paintings to Arthurian legend to the creative appropriations and inventions of the Celtic past

by 18th and 19th-century Revivalist Druids.

The data provided by the Druid John Greer’s writing (2004) provide an intriguing insight

here, considering he converted to OBOD Druidism, then to ADF Druidism. Using his own

reinterpretation of De Mille’s model, Greer judges OBOD to be valid but inauthentic, because

“much of the material in OBOD these days is valid but not authentic” (Greer 2004). He points to

how OBOD Druids continue to hold rituals at Stonehenge, despite the general consensus among

ethnohistorians that there is no evidence the ancient Druids constructed or performed rituals at

the prehistoric site. On the other hand, he judges OBOD rituals to be authentic because he

personally found OBOD rituals at Stonehenge “can be overwhelmingly powerful” (Greer 2004).

It is possible that his assessment originates from the fact that Greer himself did not ‘buy into’

  28  
OBOD’s folk history, but did ‘buy into’ ADF’s, and thus judges OBOD’s folk history by ADF’s

criteria of historical truth. This suggests some potential for future research into the processes by

which individuals convert to or leave religious traditions from a folk historical perspective.

Greer’s (2004) statements also suggests that at least some Neo-Pagans, particularly those

in religious groups that are focused on (re)constructing ancient-yet-modernized pre-Christian

European ethnic traditions, may be more drawn to a particular tradition over another if the

(re)constructions of that tradition’s folk history and symbolic systems are portrayed in such a

way as to appear to be more firmly authenticated by current ethnohistorical scholarship. Further

ethnographic fieldwork and in-depth interviews may elucidate the possible motivational factors

that lead Neo-Pagan seekers, who already identify with a religion typified by permeable inter-

denominational boundaries (Berger, Leach, and Shaffer 2003; Coco and Woodward 2007; Pizza

2009), to one tradition rather than another. Such research may also provide insights into similar

processes that occur within other broad religious traditions with relatively permeable boundaries.

The results of this study suggest that the application of Charles Hudson’s folk historical

approach to religious folk groups may be a productive endeavor. This research supports his

hypothesis that folk groups may (re)construct folk histories that differ in their criteria from etic

perceptions of history; they also show that religious folk groups may follow an analogous

process. The data presented here, however, also directly challenge his presumption that folk

histories only emerge among folk groups that are “unaffected by a Western scientific perception

of history (Hudson 1966:62). Druids in both traditions are not only affected by Western scientific

perspectives, they actively and selectively appropriate those perspectives to (re)construct or

invent traditions if and when those etic perspectives provide what Eric Hobsbawm calls a

  29  
“suitable historic past” (1983:1) that allows members of a tradition to “imagine themselves as

old” (Eriksen 1993:86).

These results also align with Hudson’s hypothesis that emergent nations or ethnic groups

seek to “forge a history” (1966:62), while also suggesting an analogous process can occur among

emergent religious groups. Hudson’s hypothesis that a group’s folk history “is refracted into

different versions in ways that are shaped by critical social variables associated with social

conflict” (1966:62), is not, however, addressed sufficiently in this study. It does appear that

ADF’s folk history, unlike OBOD’s, is (re)constructed in direct relation to the past as understood

by both etic Western ethnohistorians, and Christian groups, who presumably view the spread of

Christianity in a positive light, rather than “genocide campaigns waged against the Druids,” as

Bonewits described it (1984). OBOD authorities view the Christianization of the British Isles in

a more positively, as it is seen as a process of syncretism that helped ancient Celtic traditions

survive until the Druid Revival. Aside from these different processes of relational religiogenesis,

however, these results were not able to elucidate how Druid folk histories articulate with other

social variables and social conflict, either within the Ethnopagan folk groups, or among them and

the dominant societies in which they exist. This is a line of research I hope to address through

future ethnographic research.

I contend that the process of drawing upon the past-as-perceived by religious individuals

and communities is a topic that still needs to be explored further. Such inquiry, I believe, would

be beneficial and timely, because religious traditions around the world continue to rely upon

selectively appropriated elements from the past in order to validate and authenticate their

religious traditions and identities based on their own folk history criteria. While appropriations

and reconstructions of the past may not be the only factors in the process of constructing,

  30  
validating, and authenticating religious traditions and identities, this study suggests they continue

to play important roles in people’s religious lives, and thus merit our attention.

CONCLUSIONS

The data for this study relate specifically to Ethnopagan traditions, as this approach I believe

provides a particularly useful lens through which to analyze how religious traditions may

(re)construct their own folk histories and associated symbols through time. Some traditions, such

as that of ADF, appear to seek to (re)construct folk histories that are believed to be firmly

validated and authenticated in the ancient past as based on their interpretations of ethnohistorical

sources. Other traditions, such as that of OBOD, are less concerned with perceived ancient roots

in an ancient past; rather, validation and authentication may be seen by members to derive from a

more recent past and the usefulness of the tradition. Analyzing the data from the folk historical

perspectives of ADF and OBOD, the authorities of both traditions creatively appropriate

information and symbols from those sources in (re)constructing their tradition in ways that are

both valid and authentic based on the folk history criteria of each respective group.

The results from this study suggest the folk historical approach could prove to be

productive in the study of a wide range of religious traditions. It may be applied to the study of

older religions to better understand the historical process by which they initially grew, as well as

current established religions that continue to take on new converts. It may also be useful better

explaining the processes involved in the emergence and continuation of newer religions that

grow through conversion, whereby new members ‘buy into’ the folk history of the new group.

While this preliminary project appears to support the potential usefulness of applying a folk

historical approach to the study of religion, it is only an initial step. I should reiterate the

  31  
precaution given by ADF Druid James Millican’s that data of the kinds used in this study may

not actually reflect how current Druids view their traditions’ folk histories and symbols, nor how

members relate those folk histories and symbols to the construction of Druid identities. This

study did, however, lay a deeper foundation for further developing the research design and

questions that may contribute to future research.

References

Arthur, Shawn. 2008. Proselytization or Information? Wicca and Internet Use. In Proselytization
Revisited: Rights Talk, Free Markets, and Culture Wars. Rosalind I. J. Hackett, ed. Pp. 409-
430. Oakville, CT: Equinox.

Ashley, Kathleen and Véronique Plesch. 2002. The Cultural Processes of “Appropriation.”
Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 32(1):1-15.

Berger, Hellen, Evan Leach, and Leigh S. Shaffer. 2003. Voices From the Pagan Census: A
National Survey of Witches and Neo-Pagans in the United States. Columbia: University of
South Carolina.

Bonewits, Isaac. 1984. Indo-European Paleopaganism and Its Clergy.

http://www.adf.org/articles/identity/ieclergy.html (accessed November 7, 2010).

1996. The Origins of ADF. http://www.adf.org/articles/identity/origins.html (accessed

November 7, 2010).

———. 2005 [1985]. Symbols of Druid Identity. http://www.neopagan.net/DruidSymbols.html

(accessed November 7, 2010).

———. 2006. The Essential Guide to Druidism. New York: Citadel.

Bonewits, Isaac and Phaedra Bonewits. 2009. Our Blatant Hucksterism Page.
http://www.neopagan.net/Money.html#Jewelry-Ad (accessed November 12, 2010).

Broc’h, Katinka. 2010. The Awen. http://www.druidry.org/obod/druid-path/awen.html (accessed

November 12, 2010).

  32  
Carr-Gomm, Philip. 1994. The Druid Animal Oracle: working with the Sacred Animals of the
Druid Tradition. New York: Simon & Schuster.

———. 2002. Druid Mysteries: Ancient Wisdom for the 21st Century. London: Rider.

———. 2006a. Beliefs (excerpts from What Do Modern Druids Believe?).

http://www.druidry.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&topic_id=1&p
age_id=30 (accessed November 7, 2010).

———. 2006b. A Longer History of Druidry (excerpts from What Do Modern Druids Believe?).
http://www.druidry.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&topic_id=1&p
age_id=51 (accessed November 7, 2010).

———. 2006c. The History of Modern Druids (excerpts from What Do Modern Druids
Believe?).
http://druidry.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&topic_id=1&page_i
d=114 (accessed November 7, 2010).

Coco, Angela, and Ian Woodward. 2007. Discourses of Authenticity within a Pagan Community:
The Emergence of the “Fluffy Bunny” Sanction. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
36(5):479-504.

Corrigan, Ian. 2010a. Core Ideas of Druid Theology.

http://www.adf.org/articles/identity/polytheism-value.html (accessed November 7, 2010).

———. 2010b. On the Value of Polytheism. http://www.adf.org/articles/identity/core-

theology.html (accessed November 7, 2010).

—. 2010c. The Worlds and the Kindreds. http://www.adf.org/articles/cosmology/worlds-

kindreds.html (accessed November 7, 2010).

Cowan, Douglas E. 2005. Cyberhenge: Modern Pagans on the Internet. New York: Routledge.

Dangler, Michael J. 2010. Nine Central Tenets of Druidic Ritual.

http://www.adf.org/articles/cosmology/nine-tenets.html (accessed November 9, 2010).

De Mille, Richard. 1976. Castaneda's Journey: The Power and the Allegory. Santa Barbara, CA:
Capra.

———. 1990. Validity Is Not Authenticity. In The Invented Indian: Cultural Fictions &
Government Policies. James A. Clifton, ed. Pp. 227-235. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.

Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. 1993. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives.

London: Pluto.

  33  
Fernandez, James W. 1966. Folklore as an Agent of Nationalism. In Social Change: The
Colonial Situation. Immanuel Wallerstein, ed. Pp. 585-595. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Fox, Rev. 2010 (1995). The Ancient Celtic Otherworld.

http://www.adf.org/articles/cosmology/otherworld.html (accessed November 12, 2010).

Friedman, Jonathan. 1992. The Past in the Future: History and the Politics of Identity. American
Anthropologist 94(4):837-859.

Furth, Brett H. 2004. Rinse, Reuse, Recycle: The Conflation of Material Culture in Prehistoric
and Modern Religions. Unpublished paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the
Society for American Archaeology, Montreal, Québec, Canada.

———. 2005. Animal Sacrifice and Feasting in Celtic Gaul: Regional Variation, Costly
Signaling, and Symbolism. Masters Thesis, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.

Geal-Darach Grove. 2010. OBOD: The Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids.
http://www.bardwood.com/gdg-OBOD.htm (accessed November 16, 2010).

Green, Thomas. 1976. Folk History and Cultural Reorganization: A Tigua Example. Journal of
American Folklore 89(353):310-318.

———. 1997. Historical Narrative in the Martial Arts: A Case Study. In Usable Pasts:
Traditions and Group Identities in North America. Tad Tuleja, ed. Pp. 156-174. Logan: Utah
State University Press.

Greer, John Michael. 2004. ADF and OBOD. http://www.adf.org/about/basics/adf-and-

obod.html (accessed November 7, 2010).

Heckathorn, Douglas. 1997. Respondent-Driven Sampling: A New Approach to the Study of

Hidden Populations. Social Problems 44(2):174-199.

Hobsbawm, Eric. 1983. Introduction: inventing traditions. In The Invention of Tradition. Eric
Hobsbawm and Terrance Ranger, eds. Pp. 1-14. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

Hudson, Charles. 1966. Folk History and Ethnohistory. Ethnohistory 13(1/2):52-70.

James, Simon. 1999. The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention? Madison:
University of Wisconsin.

Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In The
Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Arjun Appadurai, ed. Pp. 64-91.
New York: Cambridge University.

Michell, John. 1977. A Little History of Astro-Archaeology: Stages in the Transformation of a

Heresy. London: Thames & Hudson.

  34  
Millett, Martin. 1990. The Romanization of Britain: an Essay in Archaeological Interpretation.
New York:Cambridge University Press.

Morgan, Prys. 1983. From a death to a view: the hunt for the Welsh past in the Romantic Period.
In The Invention of Tradition. Eric Hobsbawm and Terrance Ranger, eds. Pp. 43-100.
Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

OBOD. 2010a. A Brief History of Druidry.

http://www.druidry.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&topic_id=1&p
age_id=7 (accessed November 7, 2010).

OBOD 2010b. Druids & Stone Circles.

http://www.druidry.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&topic_id=1&p
age_id=70 (accessed November 7, 2010).

Orr, Emma Restall. 1996. Issues Facing Contemporary Druidry. http://druidry.org/obod/druid-

path/ero-issues.html (accessed November 12, 2010).

Ranger, Terrence. 1983. The Invention of Tradition in Colonial Africa. In The Invention of
Tradition. Eric Hobsbawm and Terrance Ranger, eds. Pp. 211-262. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge.

Serenwen. 2010. Coelbren Ar Beirdd. http://www.druidry.org/obod/lore/coelbren/coelbren.html

(accessed October 25, 2010).

Serith, Ceisiwr. 2003. Deities. http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/pier/deities.htm (accessed

November 7, 2010).

———. 2010. Sacrifice, the Indo-Europeans, and ADF.

http://www.adf.org/articles/cosmology/sacrifice-ie-adf.html (accessed November 1, 2010).

Solaren. 2009. A Pilgrimage Complete, Solstice and the Druid Gathering.

http://druidshearth.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/a-pilgrimage/ (accessed November 15, 2010).

Trevor-Roper, Hugh. 1983. The invention of tradition: the Highland tradition of Scotland. In The
Invention of Tradition. Eric Hobsbawm and Terrance Ranger, eds. Pp. 15-41. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge.

Wells, Peter S. 1998. Identity and material culture in the later prehistory of Central Europe.
Journal of Archaeological Research 6(3):239-298.

Williams Ab Ithel, J. (ed.). 1862. The Barddas of Iolo Morganwg, Vol. I. Electronic document,
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/bim1/bim1025.htm (accessed November 16, 2010).

  35