Just been listening to the Omnibus edition (AKA "Repeat the lot and call it a new programme") of the above, and was dismayed - though not in the least surprised - to hear a mention of "examining the entrails" of a sacrifice as augury. This by a so-called scholar discussing the prophetic practices of the Druids (of which, of course,we are totally uninformed).

I thought 'augury' was interpreting the will of the gods through the study of the flight patterns of certain birds, by the Augur or priest. Known as taking the auspices?

Nothing of import happened in Rome without first taking the auspices, but how does this equate with hypothetical animal sacrifice practices of the Druids?

Augury - "avium gestus gustusve" was (or is) indeed the practice of observing the flight and appetite of birds. That's taking the auguries, done by augurs. Consulting the entrails is taking the auspices, and was done by a haruspex, a totally different process. They have, as far as we know, turf all to do with druidic practices.

For want of a better word - ancient Celt(continental) - divination is recorded as clouting a prisoner or volunteer in times of hardship - on the base of the skull and then divining a course action based on the writhing death throes of the victim.

I had better look up where I got that from. The above was later transferred to being a Druidic method. I have never read of their doing any entrail reading etc.

Birds and livers were Greek favourities - the Etruscans being the most superstitious of all 'never left home without one.' The Romans caught the habit from them.

The long suffering Spartan contigent suffered 10 days of hell whilst Pausinas had a liver omen at the Battle of Platea good enough to suggest he begin begin his engagement....... a sheep's liver, not his own......

Outside of Roman accounts, which we know to be fanciful in many respects, has there ever been found collaborative archaeological evidence supporting the idea of a "druid" as described by Romans and now believed on that basis by many? (Let alone one who dabbled in auspices, auguries or death-throe analysis?)

The word itself does not manifest itself in any form in any language which we use today in order to deduce the vernacular language spoken in Gaul and Britain (the word "druid" is first used in a description of Gallic society and has become an accepted Latin term by the time of Augustus) and the nearest approximations that we can identify suggest their role has been grossly misinterpreted by Roman observers, being better matched to the modern English "poet". It is a real case of double invention, first on the part of the Romans who invented a class who may never have existed in that form for largely political reasons, and then a 19th century "Celtic revival" invention which retrospectively ascribed the notion of "sorcerer" to a word which was also retrospectively etymologically linked to two assumed words meaning "oak tree" and "to know".

The Irish equivalent "draoidh", which in fact is very close indeed to whatever the Romans were trying to pronounce, was a word used to describe a man of learning, normally a poet, who was distinguished from the "filidh" in that the latter were poets who worked for the chieftains while the draoidh worked freelance. Some modern historians think in fact that the draoidh, being independent of political patronage, acted as the chroniclers of their society - albeit in use of oral transmission of lore - and were therefore actually what we would call, well, "historians".

No wonder the Romans had it in for them. They hated posterity knowing anything about what they got up to which they hadn't written themselves.

PS: Tradition as invented in the 19th century based on shoddy Roman histories states that druids used mistletoe for purposes of divination. In Ireland, mistletoe, in tradition dating back to so-called "druidic" times, has always been noted as handy to have when you catch cold. Just about sums it all up.

Melvyn Bragg & guests Barry Cunliffe, Emeritus Professor of Archaeology at the University of Oxford, Miranda Aldhouse-Green, Professor of Archaeology at Cardiff University, and Justin Champion, Professor of the History of Early Modern Ideas at Royal Holloway, University of London, discuss druids in a recent edition of the programme "In Our Time".

In Our Time, Thursday 20th September

Oh good, that's back on, I hadn't noticed. Thanks Nordmann, I'll enjoy listening while doing the cooking later.

Apparently it's safe to bet that Argentina will not win the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Why? Well, this is based on the premise that the country of birth of the reigning Pope has never won the tournament.

For example when Italy won the World Cup in 1982 the then Pope had been born in Poland, while when Italy won it again in 2006 the then Pope had been born in Germany.

Similarly Germany (3 times winners) did not, however, win the World Cup in 2006 or 2010 when there was a German Pope.

Poland, which had its best ever team in 1982 (and when there was a new Polish Pope) nevertheless came Third that year behind Italy and Germany.

But what of the 2 Italian wins in the 1930s one might ask? Well, yes, Italy did indeed win the World Cup in 1934 and in 1938. And the reigning Pope then was Pius XI who was of indeed of Italian nationality. However, although he was Italian, he was not born in 'Italy'. He was born in the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia which in 1857 (the year of his birth) was then part of the Habsburg Empire.

I have been faithfully observing the death throes of a number of headless chickens - in groups of 11 - and from that confidently predict that England will not win any major soccer tournaments in the next lustrum.

Gil,
and yes after all those years 2003 still with your chickens...and I still remember the discussion with you about the augurs...
Early in the morning cheers from Paul.
Lucky that you don't name "nordmann" no, no I mean N O R D M A N N