Ancient and Archaeology聽 permalink
DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 28th September 2011
It has been said that Druids were the teachers and law givers for many of the Tribes both in Gaul and Britannia and also were religious leaders.
We are led to beleive that they also performed ghastly sacrificial acts but do we have any proof of these human sacrifices apart from Roman propoganda?
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 2
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 28th September 2011
Hi TA
I think that the short answer is 'no'. There's quite a bit of evidence for ghastly Roman sacrificial acts however.
Best wishes,
TPLink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 3
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Thursday, 29th September 2011
I watched a documentary some years ago about this, which also featured at least a couple of archaeologists and Romano-Celt experts (Francis Pryor? Dr Nick...?), that the Druids may have been involved in some form of human sacrifice in relation to the desperate attempts to invoke their Gods to save them from the advancing Romans between ad43-60ad.
After all, the 'Celts' were superstitious head-takers, and bog bodies- sometimes even 'proven' to be noble Celts- show that sacrifice was occurring?
The Romans were total liars, of course, as well as brutish Colosseum killers and baby-dumpers who didn't care for the weakest members of their society, but in their propagandist campaigns against the 'barbarian', truth often entered the stories?Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 4
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 29th September 2011
Hi TP
Many thanks.......
As well as the Summer and Winter Solstice celebrations do you know if they celebrated the Harvest at all?
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 5
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 29th September 2011
TA,
did on the French forum Passion Histoire a search with the term "druides" in the search robot and there came more than two hundred hits from it (start 2003 till now). But I found nothing "substantial" about the subject...
The best was the French wiki article...
I have a vague remembrance from my own research for the old 主播大秀 history messageboard. Something about the red hair of the Celts sparked the research if I recall it well. But even then I had the experience that there was not that much known about that subject, except some perhaps biased Roman stories.
Wanted to start some search on the internet, but was afraid from the modern humbug about the "Druids" that would appear...had just the experience with a search for Cass, when I typed "cameron" in Google...as all that about "cameron diaz"...have to specify that it was on Google Belgium that I put the term and not on Google UK...
Kind regards and with esteem to TA, TP and all the others from this A&A forum,
Paul.Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 6
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 30th September 2011
I looked in T.D. Kendrick's 1927 book "The Druids".. Kendrick was Curator of Antiquities at the British Museum and set out to bring together and sum up the state of knowledge up to then.
He hints that Roman writers may well have been influenced by the systematic and ritualised human sacrifice of their own forebears and may have projected this "template" upon what they saw of human sacrifice amongst the "Kelts."
But he points out that Diodorus hints that the victims of the "Kelts" in wicker cages were malefactors and that large-scale offerings of human beings refer to prisoners of war therefore "to some exent governed by the factor of economic expedience".
He sees it as significant that Irish texts give little indication of widespread human sacrifice, though the 12thcentury "Book of Leinster" has a legend that the Irish used to offer their first-born children to the great stone idol, Mag Slecht. That- he feels- is too long after and more the stuff of legend than fact.
He goes on:
" It is certainly true that the classical writers emphasize the occasional nature of the human offerings made by the Druids, suggesting that they took place only in times of a great danger or when for any reason the emotions of the people were deeply stirred, and , accordingly, we have no need to assume that they formed any part of the regular routine of druidism"..
In other words more "political" than "religious"
At such moments, however, there did seem to be some concept of the need for a sacrifice in troubled times "to ensure a generous measure of the earth's bounty."
Rather like politicians telling us all right now that these hard times call for us all to make sacrifices.
CassLink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 7
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Hi Cass
Nice view
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 8
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
So is that it? Someone asked if human sacrifice by Druids/Celts existed?
I think we have all said that it did, according to scholarly study?Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 9
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
I think that the question as posed by the book that I consulted is whether
(a) the Druids were something like the Priest or God rulers of some well known "civilizations" who used human sacrifice in order to remind people of their power over life and death, or
(b) whether the relationship between "religion" and "state" was more like our present one in which religious blessing or sanction is to some extent sought by the secular authorities who present the challenge of the Future in crisis terms.
But to some extent all societies "sacrifice human beings".. as I reflected in a song I wrote when I was no longer offered "the drop" from the Clifton Suspension Bridge on a daily basis.. The bridge was built to Brunel's design after his death. It was built as a "Temple" tribute to a genius of industrialism and modernity, and while I knew it intimately it took its toll of "sacrificial victims" of that "non-society".
CassLink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 10
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
I was asking TP in relation to his statement that he thinks that "no", the Celts/druids did not sacrifice humans.
I think that I and many other people have offered positive record that 'yes' would be the reply to the OP? So where are we going with this?Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 11
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Well there is probably no point in my asking our couple of Druid friends..who are from New England and of I believe Scandinavian and Polish descent.
CassLink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 12
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 2nd October 2011
Not so long ago I read a lengthy complaint by Ronald Hutton about assertions made by Mirande Green in her recent book Shamans. I can't find it at the moment so am unable to make reference to it.
Hutton was saying there is no evidence of human sacrifice in the case of some bog bodies and Lindow Man in particular. He made an interesting point but all he could suggest were alternative causes for these people turning up in bogs.
There are arguments either way in this matter and drawing firm conclusions from tentative data is always risky.
There is no doubt the Romans set out to blacken the name of the druids for the simple reason the druids were their political enemies. Whilst human sacrifice was illegal in the Roman Empire capricious brutality and murder were a fact of life. Perhaps it would have been better to have human sacrifice in the Roman Empire so that all those people who suffered terrible fates at the hands of the Roman polity would not have died in vain.Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 13
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 2nd October 2011
The Romans were total liars, of course, 聽
What rubbish. Some Roman writers may have uttered inaccuracies or falsehoods at certain points, but it is ridiculous to suggest that everything that every Roman ever wrote was false.
Let's treat the Roman writings critically, but to state that the Druids cannot have carried out human sacrifice, because it was a Roman wot wrote that, is crass in the extreme.
I reckon that the Druids probably did perform human sacrifice.Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 14
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Sunday, 2nd October 2011
I never said the Druids didn't, but that they probably DID. Try re-reading.
Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 15
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 2nd October 2011
Hi fascinating
As you say we cannot decry all the Roman writers; this is a report frone such:
The Druids officiate at the worship of the gods, regulate public and private sacrifices, and give rulings on all religious questions. Large numbers of young men flock to them for instruction, and they are held in great honour by the people.
They act as judges in practically all disputes, whether between tribes or between individuals; when any crime is committed, or a murder takes place, or a dispute arises about an inheritance or a boundary, it is they who adjudicate the matter and appoint the compensation to be paid and received by the parties concerned.
The Druids are exempt from military service and do not pay taxes like other citizens. These important privileges are naturally attractive: many present themselves of their own accord to become students of Druidism, and others are sent by their parents or relatives.
It is said that these pupils have to memorize a great number of verses - so many, that some of them spend twenty years at their studies.
From the above Roman you would think that this was a picture of a respected group of political, law abiding and religious pillars of any society.......
The writer was Julius Ceasar.
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 16
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
You can see from Caesar's description that he is shoehorning the concept of a class within society which he struggled to fully understand into terms that a Roman might better cope with, probably not least himself. The description is one he arrived at before much direct interaction with the greater part of Gallic societies (they were far more diverse than he initially envisaged), and when he did directly involve himself in that milieu he then systematically disrupted, destroyed or even completely obliterated them, so it is difficult to ascertain much from his description except that it is based on initial reports, and almost certainly a victim of gross generalisation. Its accuracy, applicability to all Gallic society, and its relevance are, despite the assertive nature of the piece, ambiguous.
Professor Ronald Hutton's excellent book about druidism highlights, with this and other examples, exactly this problem when trying to adduce anything definite about "druids". We have nothing concrete by way of a remnant upon which we can even speculate, and from Caesar onwards nothing but agenda-driven speculation on which to construct our own. Even the notion that they had a religious function is challenged, for example, by the Gaelic tradition in Ireland, probably the nearest we have to a society which accommodated "druidic" elements and survived into an age where records upon which we can adduce anything concrete are more reliable. Within that tradition the functions described by Caesar below as belonging to one class actually were divided between several diverse job-titled appointees and electees, all of whom wielded much more power and influence within the prevailing diffuse and nodal form of political administration than any one person of comparable status in Roman society ever could, except of course if he rose right to the top of that extremely hierarchical set-up. And, of course, the Roman system then had a safeguard of limited tenure of office to curtail the ambitions of these few appointees, whereas Gallic society had the opposite - a dedication to functional continuity in the form of personal office and "jobs for life" which were so strongly upheld that to Roman eyes the system slapped of spiritualism in the devotion and committment to its upkeep, rather like we might now distinguish between "vocation" and "career", but to a much stronger degree.
One can see how Caesar, and practically all other Roman commentators, would already have had difficulties comprehending this structure, let alone describing it for posterity. Yet it is thanks to them that we are now lumbered with the narrow (and often comical) notion of a druid.
Maybe they never existed ...Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 17
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 3rd October 2011
Hi Nordmann
Many thanks for the detailed explanation.
I dont really know what we are left with....
Tacitus maintains that there were Druids and sacrifices etc.
If however this was all mis information why did the Romans find it necessary to invade and occupy the supposed head of the Druidic order on Anglesey not once but twice?
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 18
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
Nordmann, the Druids most definately DID exist. Though whether in the form or behavioural pattern that the Romans say.
Julius Caesar (Caesar The Gallic War VI.13-14) wrote;
鈥淚t is believed that their rule of life was discovered in Britain and transferred hence to Gaul; and to-day those who would study the subject more accurately journey, as a rule, to Britain to learn it.鈥
Augustus excluded Druids from Roman citizenship by forbidding the practice of 鈥淒ruidical鈥 rights. Maybe he meant to sift out the intellectual class of the Celts, ie the Druids, rather than show a disdain for 'inhuman' rites?
Tiberius, Pliny reported, suppressed the druids along with diviners and physicians by a decree of the Senate.
Claudius 鈥渨holly abolished鈥 the Druids throughout the Roman Empire in 54ad, only six years before Paulinus invaded Mona (Anglesey).Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 19
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
Hi Hereword
The question remains - what exactly were the Romans calling "druids"? Much assumption has been based on a simplistic rendering of the term.
Irish again provides a clue both to the root of the Roman usage and, incidentally, the danger of too literal an interpretation of that usage today. If, for example, one supposes from the accepted etymology that "drui" translates as "seer" (not in itself a safe assumption, but a common one nevertheless) then one can indeed imbue the term with characteristics semantically applicable to a modern undersanding of "priest" (or "shaman" or "fakir" etc), and on that basis ascribe the bearer of the term a religious function in the manner that we now understand the term, and indeed how the Romans also understood the term. However this would be to ignore the actual semantic attributes in use when the term "drui" was current vernacular.
Unlike the "filidh", the "drui" held no office within the tuath, or at least none that they did not wish to hold or which could not best be described under a different title. Their function, if we attempt to analyse it based on references to them from contemporary Irish accounts, overlaps with the Roman augurers right enough, but in a manner in which augurers could never have behaved. They are depicted as unaffiliated, independent and except for occasions when directly consulted by an important person, were of limited political influence or role. On the other hand the "filidh", affiliated to important clans within a tuath and charged with the preservation of the tuath's prestige through managing what might nowadays be called the tuath's "intellectual property and resources", were politically speaking of high status and influence. They were consulted prior to and during military and political operations, and a "defection" of a filidh, such as in the case of Ruairi Maolseachlainn in the 6th century, was regarded as potentially ruinous to the ambitions of the ex-employer, almost as serious as losing one's army. It was also the filidh who acted as ambassadors for the tuath leadership so if, as we tend to assume, a similar structure applied in pre-Roman Britain and Gaul, it would have been these, and not the augurers, who would have been first identified by Romans as representing the most likely source of concerted political opposition, especially if they became organised and acted in unison. It was also not unusual for the role of filidh and "tanaiste" to be assumed by the same person, so even without their organising it would still have been this class and this office which would first have encountered the Romans politically, diplomatically and in combat.
Yet from Caesar, and later writers, we don't hear about these guys at all, which begs the question how they could so fundamentally have mis-identified such a real threat to and opponent of their own ambitions? Of course the answer is probably one of simple and almost wilful ignorance, in that Caesar and his successors were far less interested in correct nomenclature than they were in achieving their aims of conquest as rapidly as possible. Part of achieving this lay, as Caesar well knew, in successfully and simplistically portraying the "enemy" as understood, manageable and most importantly, defeatable. And nor was Caesar a stranger to the notion of "High Priest" (Pontifex Maxmus, the position he still held at the outset of his Gallic campaign) as warrior. Rome had no equivalent for the filidh class, but they well understood - or thought they well understood - the "druid". It was the term therefore which was first presented to Roman understanding of "Celtic" society, and the one therefore that stuck.
So when one reads about the elimination of the druids in Anglesey one should take a step back from the simplistic Roman account and attempt to analyse the event in terms that the victims themselves might have better understood. In my own view this event smacks more of an inter-tribal confederation of the filidh and tanaiste classes (we are so badly informed by Roman writers that we do not even know by what designations these classes were known in Britain), and maybe even a few druids too. But essentially it was an attempt, in light of what we know about how the Irish tuatha organised themselves, to circumvent inter-tribal rivalries and begin to oppose Roman rule as a unified force. This was why it was so thoroughly tackled by Rome and this is also why the elimination of this class was so fundamentally decisive in quenching British resistance. It might even have been the end of the druid class, but that's almost beside the point.Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 20
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
I believe that no matter what we, and the Romans, think that the 'Druids' are/were, there was a very real 'threat' by a Celtic intelligentsia of people who practised religious rites which may or may not have included sacrifices, but which certainly alarmed many different Emperors and generations of Roman generals (ie. Caesar, Paulinus and Agricola)?
I think it was this class of 'Druid', whether they differed from their Continental or Irish counterparts or not, that was based on Mona and which morally, spiritually and militarily led the Brythonic tribes, and were able to move freely about them to co-ordinate and inspire revolt.Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 21
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
Yes - their reputed freedom of movement was something that the Romans might well have identified as a threat. However as a part of the "intellegentsia" I feel their status in that respect is exaggerated. It could well have been of course that exposure to Roman aggression galvanised them into functioning in a manner new to them, but that still means a measure of mis-identification to begin with, however much a self-fulfilling prophecy this might even have been.
I still prefer to distrust simplistic translations when they stand in opposition to what we can infer from other sources, and basically this is what we are often talking about with regard to Roman descriptions of "foreign" societies. Druids are just one case in point - and though it has led to some delightfully funny modern interpretations (Getafix in the Asterix stories, for example), it is insufficient an historical analysis with which to proceed, unless of course one is drawn to the notion of prancing about megalithic sites in bedsheets in which case it is more than adequate.Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 22
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
In the light of recent posts about Roman towns and harbour in South Wales- is it not possible that part of the Roman interest in Anglesea was related to its obvious attractions as a military base.. e.g. Beaumaris Castle of the English era... Not to mention the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge?
CassLink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 23
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
Very possible, Cass, though I'm unfamiliar with Anglesey's geography.
The Romans instead built a colossal 'superfortress' at Deva (Chester) in which it is suggested that this was to serve as the staging post for an 'invasion' of Ireland by Agricola et al, as it did for northern Brittania later.Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 24
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
Hereword
Well.. If the Romans felt that they needed a colossal superfortress at Deva (Chester a crucial nodal point) that would have made the island of Anglesea especially attractive.. As I commented, even the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge seem to rather enjoy a sense of being "away from it all".
I believe that the Menai Straits would have provided protected anchorage on that sometimes wild and tempestuous coast.. It was for these reasons that Thomas Telford built the revolutionary Menai Straits Suspension bridge- high enough to allow coastal ships to still sail along the Straits and avoid the open sea.
From Anglesea there was a good chance of seeing any invasion fleet heading for Chester and the mainland. And Anglesea is flat -certainly by the standards of North Wales- and could grow food for its own needs plus.
I remember "The Blood of the Vikings" series that visited Anglesea discovered that it had received a great deal of "attention" from Viking raiders as well.
CassLink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 25
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
Quite possibly Cass, but nevertheless, a huge superfortress was proven by modern archaeology to have been built beneath modern Chester, around c.120ad - sixty years after the massacre of Mona (unrelated) by Paulinus.
This site alone would have provided for the intended forays to the west, whether actual invasion (Agricola said he could invade 'Ireland' with one legion) or reconnaisance in force.
Besides, even if the druids had still held Mona by 120ad (impossible as history stands), the Roman naval invasion force would have feared little from a Druidic navy or artillery?
Farming on Mona would have, I suspect, have been little attraction to the Romans, too small a land far from Rome's protection when there was plentiful agriculture available on the rich southern mainland.Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 26
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
Hereword
But as I say recent AA posts have emphasised the value of Wales and the South West to the Romans with their mineral wealth one of the main reasons for the Roman interest in these islands..
And as for the fortress at Chester the thread some years ago on the Forts of the Saxon Shore point to the Roman practice of having interconnected forts where large military units could be split up in self-sufficient units- until they needed to be concentrated on a point of danger.. One might think of the Roman military presence as operating on a kind of "national grid" system.
CassLink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 27
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Tuesday, 4th October 2011
Mineral wealth was one thing to the Romans, military strategy was another, vital clue.
Mona and Deva were the latter, and I thibk more vital in consideration.
Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 28
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
Hi Cass and Hereword
Surprisingly apart from a fortlet and a signal station there has been no military installation been found on Anglesey or harbour in the Menai Straits however just below Segontium (the Roman Fort in Caernarfon) there is a river inlet below the fort where ships might have been moored.
Segontium was built in AD77 by Agricola鈥檚 troops after defeating the Ordovices.
The Legionary fort at Chester was built around AD70 -80 and does have a harbour and one of the largest amphitheatres in Britain.
As far as I am aware there are no 鈥淪axon Shore Type Forts鈥 on the Welsh coast after Cardiff but of course there may be some that have not been discovered.
During the Agricola campaign against the Ordovices, Anglesey was again invaded and this time was finally subjugated.
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 29
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 18th November 2011
Nordmann,
just seen on Arte (French-German tv channel. On Arte+7 on computer to be exact) "The twilight of the Celts". I guess you can only receive it in France, Germany and Belgium. It's a pity that I didn't found an English subtitled version on you tube...a bit the same way as the 主播大秀 player...
From the second century BC if I remember it well.
They found a complete skeleton of a child amid other slaughtered animals. Two
complete skeletons of elderly people in squatting position. From the context the archaeologues thougt that it could be hiearchical high people...the archaeologues were that fair to show some modern druid gathering in Britanny and said that all this conjecture was pure fantasy and not history.
I have seen the film on the computer with the cursor moving only to the interesting (for me!) parts. If someone has questions (although he can't see the film...) I am prepared to seek in the documentary (but it is only available on computer for 7 days)
Kind regards and with high esteem,
Paul.Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 30
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 18th November 2011
Addendum to previous message.
I have nevertheless found the film...
Cheers, Paul.Link to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
-
Message 31
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 18th November 2011
Paul
Thanks for the link.. I started watching it and will carry on perhaps tomorrow.
When I am in France I find myself watching Arte a great deal..
I think it was this year that they had a whole series on the Teutons- stressing the fact that the Francs were Teutons with scenes from the life of Clovis.
CassLink to this forum: DRUIDS - DID THEY REALLY SACRIFICE HUMANS?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.