Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist's topics - tribe.net

Reconstructing Religion / Society

Morchu — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:31:20 GMT

Has anyone here ever been overwhelmed with the degree to which our society has departed from the cultural context of early Celtic religion? Ever since the Reformation western society has increasingly relegated the religious perspective, faith-issues, what-have-you to the immaterial — both literally and figuratively; faith is a personal choice and even more than having little actual bearing on the patterns of our work and social politics, our religious beliefs — according to post-Reformation thought — should be excluded from public life. Religious belief is absolutely private according to post-Reformation common sense.

Now I know that you could easily argue against this, pointing out how every faith has at some level a social element, but what I am talking about is an indelible and constitutive link between a social body and the religion that it holds, specifically in looking back at the Celtic world. The sovereignty goddess alone stands as a representative of how holistic Celtic religion was. In her you have both the political body, the natural world and — of course — religion. Religion was written on the landscape in the same way that the social body was written on the landscape. The early Irish statement 'tongu na-tongat mo thuath'; 'I swear by that by which my people swear' is, I believe, very indicative of both the awareness in that early culture of how relative the religious experience was, but also how closely bound together people and religion were as well.

Ok, so where does this leave us who fragment our landscape and our lives between work, home and play arenas (that latter refers to entertainment). Even our television is completely fragmented, with commercials interrupting the narrative every so often. I am sure we’ve all experienced a real story, told in high style, so is anyone else weirded out by the sheer degree to which modern society differs from early Celtic? How exactly do we go about reconstruction early Celtic religion without reconstructing to some degree early Celtic society?

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

Celtic Reconstructionists in Germany

Roana — Wed, 20 May 2009 10:58:36 GMT

Hi all!

In Germany too, some people found together, to reconstruct celtic paganism:

http://www.celtoi.net with a very active (german speaking) forum.

Greetings
Ulrike

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

Celtic reconstructionists in Vancouver

Andrew — Thu, 03 May 2007 00:15:38 GMT

Greetings!
I hope there are some BC'ers in this tribe interested in forming a tuatha of our own, who could meet, learn, worship and celebrate together! Let me know....
D

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 3 replies

Bay Celtic Music and Dance Festival Sat Feb 21 Oakland Veterans Hall

scott — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 04:14:37 GMT

The San Francisco Bay Area Celtic Music and Dance Festival is happening this Saturday, February 21st at the Oakland Veterans Hall 200 Grand Avenue Oakland, 94610, X Harrison.

BayCeltic is an annual reunion of Bay Area Celtic musicians, singers, dancers and performers.

We have a wide range of very popular and well established musicians and performers.

The Black Brothers, Tempest, Molly's Revenge, Cullan's Hounds,Avalon Rising, Steve Baughman,and Siamsa, a bay area Celtic dance performance group, are in the main Ballroom.

In the musical showcase, new and emerging bands and musicians are are Three Mile Stone, Jim Nelson,Patrice Haan,Megan McLaughlin,Valerie Rose,West of Shannon,Susan Mashiyama and Lani Herrmann.

Steve Baughman will perform and lead the music session afterwards.

Dancing in the Dance Hall are an Irish Ceilidh with Ammy Hill, Irish Set dancing with Michael Murphy, hard shoes introductory dance class with Shirleigh Brannan.

We will have waltz and polka and irish dancing at 10pm to Culann's Hounds.

Lunchroom downstairs and Celtic vendors also.

The website is www.BayCeltic.com

Tickets available at the door: $20 general, $10 students, free under 12, $10 after 9:30 to waltz and polka dancing to Culann's Hounds

contact Scott at scottFNW@pway.com

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

Pre-IE/Eurasian (Shamanic) Hearth-Goddess

MacMorrighan — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:13:32 GMT

Hey guys, I am presently engaged in a study re: hearth-goddesses, and have been struck by the amazing cultic similarities between IE countries with those in Siberia, Mongolia, and China, etc.! Many themes occur in these "eastern" and shamanic lands that also occur in the IE countries. Among these are the tending of the hearth-deity by a virgin; the annual extinquishing and renewal of the flame (universally with a fire-drill culled from an especial source of wood); the head Mistress of the home usually tends the hearth spirit; a token flame of the hearth is employed to re-kindle a new hearth when the clan or family moves to a new location; and a new bride is usually introduced to the hearth-spirit of her new family; while the ability of fire to be the provence of purity itself seems near-universal, as well, perhaps to the extent of the family line, I wonder (What other reasons could there be?), etc. Another theme I see is regarding the opening of seasonal portals--for example February opens the seasonal portal of Spring in China, Rome (according to one source), Lithuania, and Ireland, for example. I have found other analogous evidence for some of the other Irish-
Gaelic celebrational dates/seasonal portals. So, I was wondering is lines of transmission might be clearly drawn in any of this data into IE cultures? Another thought that occured to me re: the virginal attendees of the hearth is this: I wonder if their impetus is, in actuality, associated with their womb as a sort of force of untapped potential in carrying on the family line/genes, etc.? Many hearth spirits seems associated with the family seat in this way. Here are some of the Asiatic and shamanic hearth-goddesses that I have culled, so far. What do you think? Also bear in mind that I have even found male hearth-gods that fit some of these themes, as well; so, they are not confined to goddesses. Honestly, I'm surprised that I've never come across any literature (academic or otherwise) that deals with this subject in any depth!

Among the Sakha (or Yakut) communities of Siberia, it is standard to introduce a new bride to the family "hearth spirit" (yot ichchite), at which point offerings of food were made by her. [1] (I have notbeen able to discern the gender of this hearth-spirit, yet.)

BOKAM is the feminized hearth-flame worshipped by the shamanic Ket tribe of Siberia; they dominate the lower basin of the holy Yenisei River in Russia's Krasnoyarsk Krai district. Imagined as a beautiful woman; Bokam is thought to guard both hearth and home. Mealtime offerings were made to the goddess, usually with small portions of meat and tea. Her name translates as "Fire-Mother"; and, as a consequence of her gender, she bears certain connotations with clan lineage. Moreover, when Bokam was addressed, it was with the same due respect given one's grandmother. When the Ket people migrated to a new encampment, the hearth was carried with them in a special box in order to re-kindle their ancestral flame.[2]

FUCHI or Huchi probably means "Fire". She is a kamui [goddess] of the hearth worshipped by the Ainu aborigines of Japan; and according to one account of her mythic origins she was borne from the spark kindled by a fire drill. As a hearth-goddess it is believed that she functions as an intermediary between the gods and humankind; while, one's ancestors are thought to pass into the Ainu underworld through the hearth-flame. Being the Mistress who oversees domestic affairs, the purity of the hearth is paramount so as to avoid angering the goddess. Consequently her sacred fire must never be intentionally extinguished.[3] The Ainu believe that the goddess resides within the hearth (a rectangular space located at the center of each home, or chise), from where she extends her blessings upon each clan member.[4] She may be associated with Fuji.[5]

FUJI / Fujiyama / Sengen-Sama The Japanese hearth-goddess of the native Ainu people, and personification of Mt. Fuji (an extinct volcano), the apex on which her sanctuary was constructed. Due to the predisposition of the Ainu people towards an indigenous form of shamanism, this mountain may have been regarded as an axis mundi serving to unite the "heavenly" world of the gods with the "Underworld" presided over by one's ancestors.[6] This is a demonstrably pan-global religious theme probably dating to the Neolithic period or earlier.[7] Throughout the summer calends it is common for parishioners to climb Mt. Fuji in order to pay homage to the rising sun, while women were once excluded from such sacred processions in the view that they were impure—this social tabu is no longer recognized. However, sometime between the fourteenth- and sixteenth-century CE Fuji was eventually superseded as the dominant spirit of the mountain, being displaced by a goddess from Japanese folk-religion named Konohana Sakuya Hime ["The Goddess of Flowering Trees"] who was believed to keep the volcano from erupting. Fujiyama's name means "grandmother" or "ancestress", indicating that she may have been a deified tribal elder; however, it has also been suggested that her epithet is derived from that of the goddess, Fuchi.[8]

Fuji may also be a goddess connected with native game animals, particularly the bear. After a successful hunt, when a wild bear was killed, its carcass was brought into the home of an Ainu tribesman and positioned next to the central hearth (which she is thought to guard) where this deified animal would engage in a ceremonial conversion with the goddess, discussing their common home—the sacred mountain. The next day the creature was flayed and cooked, with generous offerings being made to its skull. After the observance of these honorary customs the spirit of the bear is then asked to return to his forest-home on Mt. Fuji.[9]

GHALAKHAN EKE was originally a Mongolian fire-goddess. She enjoys worship on one of the last day of the years where a sheep's breast bone was offered to her; as well as at weddings; the summer solstice, when libations were poured out to her; and at spring requesting that camels be blessed. Her name means "Fire-Queen Mother". Ghalakhan Eke came into existence when the gods of Heaven and the Earth, as well as those of the mountains, animals and trees were, as of yet, in a primordeal state. Her cult seems to underscore genealogical continuity and the family, because she is frequently invoked for fine sons, daughters, brides, and sons-in-law. Butter (ghee) is also offered to her, as with other hearth-cults, such as that of Agni in India. The Mongolian hearth-deity is now generally conceived of as masculine.[10] The Mongolian hearth-cult enjoys many Indo-Iranian parallels.

GHOLUMTA EKE ["Hearth-Mother"] is another identity of the Mongolian hearth-goddess.[11]

HINUKAN is a hearth-goddess worshipped throughout Okinawa, Japan; she ensures the safety of each household. Her rites are conducted by the eldest female residing in the home. However, it is not deemed customary for men to pray at her hearth, probably because males have never been associated with religious authority in this region of Japan. Hinukan is esteemed as the mediator between the gods and mankind. The cultic hearth was constructed—in times past—with three stones that were placed inside a box, upon a layer of ash, and then positioned next to an oil lamp; but, today, a ceramic censer (kouro) is employed to petition the hearth-deity. According to tradition, when the matriarch of the home dies, her successor destroys the censor and establishes a new one in honor of the fire-goddess.[12]

Of course, women have always held an honorary position within Okinawan religious life in the belief that they are spiritually superior to men—they are the natural intercessors between mankind and the supernatural. Household rites associated with the hearth are usually commenced on the 1st and 15th of each month where the senior female prays to Hinukan, reporting the activities of those living within the home; the hearth-goddess then relays this message back to the higher gods. Thanks and requests are then made, often with prayers offered to the flame of the hearth inscribed onto pieces of wood or paper. At an earlier age in Japanese history it was thought that each household chose a virginal daughter to guard the hearth flame from being extinguished.[13] Her name means "Fire Deity".

HWEI-LU or Wei was originally a Chinese fire-goddess, but gradually came to be recognized as the spirit of the hearth (or Tsao shin) during the end of the seventh-century BCE. The caretaker of an ancestral temple at Lu is thought to have first worshipped her in this guise, sacrificing to the goddess with firewood that he had set ablaze. Her cult assumed a role of only marginal importance within native folk-religion for the next five-hundred years, until the early second-century, when an Emperor from the Han dynasty officially adopted Hwei-lu as a member of the imperial-cult; hitherto the late nineteenth-century CE, however, the presiding spirit of the hearth has come to be regarded as one of the most preeminent deities of China. The goddess was commonly imagined as a beautiful woman dressed in red; while, during the late third-century, Emperor Kao-tsu, decreed her to be First Cook (Sien tch'vei)—an epithet of apparent importance within the region of Tsin—regardless of the fact that an alternative epithet, Spirit of the Furnace (Tsuan shin), was regarded with equal importance at that time. It was during this century that her gender was re-defined, and her identity as the male kitchen-god firmly established. But, Chinese folk-religion is diverse in many ways, depending upon one's clan or tribe. As a result, some households are known to revere both a hearth-goddess and a hearth-god, known by local titles. For example, in the district of Fuhtchou, the Prince of the Hearth (Chau Kung) was worshipped alongside the Mother of the Hearth (Chau Ma) as a divine pair. During the late seventh-century BCE, it was decreed that all hearths throughout China must be extinguished for three days preceding the vernal equinox in order that they might be annually renewed; during this period, all food must be eaten raw. This edict was established by the Marquess Wen, husband to Ke-Wei (a chieftain's daughter), after whom the goddess came to be euhemerized as Wei. The impetus for this annual custom was the primitive notion that fire was a substance of purification. As a result, at each seasonal portal, large state bonfires were kindled in order to ward off any evil influences and misfortune from the approaching quarter. Especial kindling was also chosen for these ceremonies.[14]

UT is the chief goddess of the Mongolian people—the spirit of fire—and resides in the domestic hearth, located in the center of each yurt. It was she who ensured the safety of each household, and bequeathed to those who respected her with happiness and wealth.
Valuing her societal tabus, and keeping her hearth clean generally assured this.[15] The Mongolian domicile was essentially a microcosm of the Universe, surrounded by the native zodiac, with the hearth burning at its center.[16]

Fire was endowed with the ability to purify; and the hearth was naturally thought to confer not only light, but would render one's home a virtuous space. As a result, fire was employed to make inanimate objects, persons and animals "clean" either by holding a flame over that which is to be cleansed, walking between two flames, or carrying an item over a low fire. If a person was to die, having a torch carried around their remains, or their possessions, was thought to ritually purify them and their objects. This belief denoting fire as the provenance of purity was also extended to any foreign dignitaries who were asked to walk between two fires before approaching the Mongol court, in the view that it would neutralize any desire for adversarial behavior. Ut was presented with daily mealtime offerings of oil, wine, or fat because these items would enhance the hearth's flame. However, any individual struck down with a sickness or serious injury was thought to have offended the goddess by violating one of her sacred prohibitions. Among these tabus, it was not deemed acceptable to cast any offering onto the hearth that might produce a foul scent; nor was one permitted to step directly over the hearth, or brandish a sharp weapon in its general direction. But, spitting on the hearth or pouring water onto it was considered the most grievous of "sins"—both gestures clearly intended to threaten or vanquish the goddess.[17] However, these prohibitions might also ensure proper respect for one's ancestral line and genealogical continuity. Proper reverence for the hearth-flame was especially important due largely to the belief that, to "extinguish one's hearth-fire" implied killing an individual, or his entire family (though, sometimes both).[18] In Mongolian tribal society the hearth is connected with the youngest son of each yurt, who is believed to inherit the tribal homeland and his ancestral hearth, while older sons are required to found a new residence.[19] Ut's name is derived from the archaic Turkic noun ot, meaning flame or fire.

[1] Ramet, Sabrina P. [1993]. Religious Policy in the Soviet Union. Cambridge University Press: pp. 239.
[2] Bianchi, Ugo, C. J. Bleeker and A. Bausani [1972]. Problems and Methods of the History of Religions. BRILL: pp. 186.
[3] Ashkenazy, Michael [2003]. A Handbook of Japanese Mythology. ABC-Clio: pp. 191-192.
[4] Smithsonian: National Museum of Natural History. The Arctic Studies Center. Ainu: Spirit of a Northern People. " Chise: The Ainu House, Room 4 Overview". <http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/ainu/html/room04.html> [Last Accessed: 15 August, 2008]
[5] University of St. Francis. "Mount Fuji". <http://www.stfrancis.edu/ns/bromer/earthsci/student8/Joe%20and%
20Bettylou/Mount%20Fuji.html> [Last Accessed: 31 March, 2007]
[6] Blacker, Carmen [1975]. "Two Kinds of Japanese Shamans: The Medium and the Ascetic" in J. Narby & F. Huxley [eds.], Shamans Through Time: 500 Years On The Path to Knowledge. Tarcher/Penguin: pp. 210; Eliade, Mecea [1964]. Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Bollingen Series LXXVI. Princeton University Press: pp. 266-69.
[7] On this theme see: Lewis-Willians, David & David Pearce [2005]. Inside The Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, Cosmos and the Realms of the Gods. Thames & Hudson.
[8] University of St. Francis. "Mount Fuji", Ibid.
[9] Campbell, Joseph [1959]. The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology, Vol. 1. Penguin Compass: pp. 338-9 and 395.
[10] Baldick, Julian [2000]. Animal and Shaman: Ancient Religions of Central Asia. I. B. Tauris: pp. 117.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Okinawa.Com: Religion. "Keys to Okinawan Culture", pub. by the Okinawan Prefectural Government [1992]. <http://okinawa.com/content/blogcategory/35/72/lang,en/> [Last accessed: 4 July, 2007]
[13] Nanzan University. Reichl, Christopher A. "The Okinawan New Religion Ijun: Innovation and Diversity in the Gender of Ritual Specialists". Japanese Journal of Religious Studies. 20.4 (1993). <http://www.ic.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/pdf/403.pdf> [Last Accessed: 20 August, 2008].
[14] Terrien de Lacouperie, Albert Étienne [1894]. Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilization from 2,300 B.C. to 200 A.D. Adamant Media: pp. 160-3.
[15] Znamenski, Andrei A. [2003]. Shamanism in Siberia: Russian Records of Indigenous Spirituality. Springer: pp. 68.
[16] The Silver Horde. Mendsaikhan, B. [2006]. "Mongolian Customs". <http://www.viahistoria.com/SilverHorde/research/MongolCustoms.html> [Last Accessed: 20 August, 2008].
[17] Shamanism in Siberia, Ibid.
[18] Mcalester College: Anthropology Dept. Mongolian Language Project: "Fire". <http://www.macalester.edu/anthropology/mongolia/fire.html> [Last Accessed: 20 August, 2008].
[19] Bulag, Uradyn Erden [1998]. Nationalism and Hybridity in
Mongolia. Oxford University Press: pp. 71.

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

Sheep & the PIE Hearth-Goddess!

MacMorrighan — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:13:31 GMT

Hey guys, I was reading through my copy of Mary Beard's "Religions of Rome, Vol. 1: A History", the other day, when I scanned a section where an ancient author [Roman!] declared that sheep were the especial offerings dedicated to virgin-goddesses, in reference to Vesta. It was then that something mentally clicked: the Irish Brighid is associated with sheep [even Iron Age archaeologist have found offering pits with the skeletal remains of male sheep in them, after they had pressumibly been consumed during Imbolc]; Vesta was given offerings of sheep; and even Gabija's Christian incarnation--Agnus--is associated with sheep. So, I wonder if there might be a PIE impetus at heart, here. Then again, the pre-Zoroastrian virginal water-goddess, Anahita, had as her cult-animal, the sheep. Any thoughts or feelings? Can anyone else think of, and cite, any other evidence where hearth-goddesses might be associated with offerings of sheep to some degree? One wondes if it may extend to Siberia or Mongolia, where many hearth-cult traditions certainly originated?

Take Care and Happy Holidays,
Wade

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

who here is into Sprang and Nøler binding?

Seydr — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:23:58 GMT

I use these techiques but there are not many others or are there, I d like to exchange patterns , and tricks......so lets see what youre up to

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

The Horned God in My Own Image!

MacMorrighan — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 16:13:59 GMT

Well, here's how-- generally-- I envision my Horned Lord. How doi you guys see Him, physically? Now, I know that the Gardnerian Horned God is the Stag-God, but...I wonder how they strictly envision Him (pressuming they do). And, Asterion (who's likeness adorns much Minoian currency; whom Rhea loved so much she forbid Him the love of any woman, whereby Poseidon-- the Earth-Shaker-- is said to have succumned to His lusts...this may mirror the role between the Minos [the Minoan H.P.] and his "Server" [the working partner and fellow H.P. of the Minos]) of the Minoan Brotherhood too, for example. Anyhoo...here's how I "see" Him:

* He'd be ripped, and buff! Hey, I'm Gay, and have certain proclivities regarding the male form, akin to that of Classical Greece. Take a look at str8 adult porn stud Colt Steel for more detail concerning the God from the neck down, generally-speaking. I also see Him with the sexiest back-side imaginable! I knew a guy back in college [a baseball Jock that rode his bike EVERYWHERE] with rump like that, which actually took my breath away!!!
* There should also be something-- to be determined later, when the sacred inspiration [or imbis forosnai] comes upon me-- relating Him, also, as the Dread Lord of Death, as appears to be the origional concept in Traditional Wica [note the singular "C"].
* He'd have a set of Stag antlers, each of seven tines [or points] to represent the King Stag.
* I envision Him with a goatee, rather than the "traditional beard". First, because they're quite fetching on most men. And, secondly, it is commonly believed that earlier cultures could not have had groomed facial hair! However, this has proven to be a false assumption. The Celts, for instance, were a deeply festidious band of tribes! The archaeological record attests to the fact that they took great pride in their appearance, having had combes and mirrors, and other such personal grooming devices. This, more than likely, extended to men's facial hair, as well, rather than the "wild," tattered, massive beards we so often envision due to popular culture [and indeed, this idea is far too often promulgated amongst modern Paganism]. Hey, the beard may have been rebeliously "stylish" back during the 60s, but no longer... Ditto with with the long ex-hippie hair-do!
* He'd proudly display various personally designed tribal tattoos across His torso, and body; perhaps spirals of rebirth [i.e., His dying/rising Aspect]. Perhaps gleaned via meditation and skrying... And, maybe, wreathed around each bicep could be witnessed-- such as the tribal/barbed wire motif so popular today-- a tattoo of intertwining holly and oak.
* Some very "shamanic" accoutrements would adorn His Holy visage, such as a necklace, ear rings [nipple rings? Prince Albert piercing? ], an anklet, perhaps a torque, or other jewelry, as well as a staff or stang, etc.
* No "goatfoot" God for me, thank you! Cloven hooves would recall Pan, rather than the Horned God of the Celtic-type, I believe.
* I am certainly no prude, nor are any of the Traditional Witches from Gardner's renaisance. However, modern Pagans seem very close minded, sexually, and where the human body is concerned. My image of the Horned God would definately, like most Horned Gods, be ithyphallic [even Patricia Crowther, Gardnerian HPs, called Him such in one of Her chants, when she sang, "Ithym phallus Thou do bear!"], and proportionately-so. But, an uncircumcised phallus, at that! Now, I cannot speak for all modern Pagans, but I should think that they should be opposed to this so-called "common" proceedure [i.e., circumsision]. Also, It will have to be a LARGE and erect phallis, but nothing cartoonishly-huge!
* I should rather He at least be cast in the "Bone finish" as my beloved Morrighan statue, for no other reason than to asthetically compliment Her upon Their Holy altar.

Hmmm...can anyone else think of any other ideas worth "adding" to Him? I was also considering rummaging for some photos of men to get His physical form "just right". You know, take these pics. to Artisan X and say, "Now, I want Him to have his arms, oh, and this guy's rump, and this blokes jaw and cheek bones, oh, and his pecs!", etc. Heh heh heh...

Take Care,
Wade MacMorrighan

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 4 replies

My Fave Books!

MacMorrighan — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:01:53 GMT

Hey guys, here's most of the books (and even one site) that I thoroughly recommend to "Celtic" Pagans (this list was typed from memory, off the top'a my head, so some spellings and itles may be off):

* A History of Pagan Europe", by Prudence Jones and Nigel Pennick
* "European Paganism", by Ken Dowden
* "The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British isles", by ROnald Hutton: Don't take this book very seriously, because it is HIGHLY flawed due to a flawed methodology and unacknowledged BIAS of the highest degree that get's in the way of what MAY have actually happened. In fact, there's so much wrong with his books, as a whole, that I could write an entire article about the problems in his material that is accepted, sadly, as "definative" by the corpus of contemporary Pagans! <sigh>
* "The Stations of the Sun", by Ronald Hutton: Ditto!!!!!!!!!
* "The Gods of the Celts", by Miranda Green
* " The Quest for the Shaman", by Miranda Green
* "The Concept of the Goddess", ed. by Miranda Green
* The Great Queens", by Rosalind Clark
* "Celtic Goddesses", by Miranda Green
* "Dictionary of Celtic Mythology", by Miranda Green
* "Oxford Dictionary of Celtic Mythology", by James Mackillop
* "Celtic Mythology", by Proinsias Mac Cana
* "The Ancient Celts", by Barry Cunnlife
* "Pagan Celtic Ireland", by Barry Rafterie
* "Pagan Celtic Britain", by Anna Rosse
* "The Witch Figure", ed. by Venetia Newall
* "The Lore of Ireland", by Dathi O hOgain
* "Early Irish Myths and Saga", trans. by Jeffrey Gantz
* "The Tain", trans. and comp. by Thomas Kinsella
* "The Sacred Isle", by Dathi O hOgain
* "The Lady with the Mead Cup" (This is still a book on my "To Buy" List!!!)
* "Christianity: The Origins of a Pagan eligion", by Philipe Walter
* "The Celts", by John Collis
* "Celtic Heritage", by the Rees bros.
* "The Encyclopedia of Celtic Myth and Legend: A Source Book", by John & Caitlin Matthews
* "The Celtic Heroic Age", trans. and comp. by John Carey & John T. Koch
* "Cattle Lords and Clansmen", by Nerrys Patterson
* "Carmina Gadelica", by Alexander Carmichael
* "The Gaelic Otherworld: John Gregorson Campbell's 'Superstitions of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland' and 'Witchcraft and Second Sight in the Highlands and Islands'", ed. (with commentary) by Ronald Black
* "In Search of the Indo-European", by James P. Mallory
* Whence the Goddess: A Sourcebook", by Miriam RObbins Dexter
* "Indo-European Poetry & Myth", by M.L. West
* "The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World", by JP Mallory and DQ Adams
* "Inside the Neolithic Mind", by David Lewis-Williams
* "The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe: Myths and Cult Images", by Marija Gimbutas
* "The Living Goddesses", by Marija Gimbutas
* "The Druids", by Stuart Piggot

These are all that I can think of, right now... What else would YOU add in an academic vein?

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

eligious/Mythological Research Grants?

MacMorrighan — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:22:11 GMT

Hey guys, I was wondering if anyone here might know about how I might go about finding, and applying for, a research grant for my Morrighan thesis?! The Rees brothers did when writing "Celtic Heritage"; and many programmes on PBS do so in turn. So...why can't (or shouldn't) I?! Hmmm...I wonder if the Lilly Endowment would be an option; they support and help produce Religion & Ethics Newsweekly [http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/index_flash.html], because the founders of the organization have an interest in Religion (if I remember the correct supporter from the last broadcast I saw). This is in reference to my Morrighan thesis which, as I plan, will seek to "study" those that worship Her in part.

Take Care,
Wade MacMorrighan

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 2 replies

The Goddess, "Samhain"?!

MacMorrighan — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:52:14 GMT

Hey guys, for MANY years we Pagans have been castigating our newby kindred-souls by stating (and deflating the popular notion) that there was no such Deity as "Samhain", after whom the Sabbat was named. But, is this so? Well, I had always heard that there was never any God (in the masculine) named "Samhain". But, it turns out, that there is certain a Goddess that bears this name--The Morrighan! I ordered an academic article from a Celtic Studies publication (I forget the title of the Journal and article off the top of my head, as I've filed them away for the moment) wherein The Morrighan, during the Da Derga's Hostel tale--when asked who She is--utters off a string of names and epithets, including Macha, Bodb, Nemain, as well as even "Samhain"--"Summer's End"!!! So....there ya' go! ;o)

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 4 replies

Denoting Celtic Deism?

MacMorrighan — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:10:13 GMT

Hey guys, tonight I happened by the Half Price Bookstore and, as often occures, I found a book that I've been wanting to add to my personal Library for a while, now: TGE Powell's "The Celts"! Anyway, he said exactly what other Celktic scholars have said: that the Celts had a type of inter-tribal religion whereby the singular male god of each tribe (personified by the chiftain, pressumibly) was mated to the tribal land-goddess, rather than having a polytheistic religion as so many Pagans often imagine. Hey, a later scholar (Barry Cunliffe) even used the exact same illustrative examples as he: Th Daghdha and The Morrighan. Moreover, based upon the evidence found in material culture, iconography, and medieval textual sources most (if not all) of the deities we have on record are merely different manifestations of epithets for each other. In other words (which is also based upon my research) The Morrighan is an identity (rather than merely associated with) Anu, as well as Challeach, Eire, Samain, and other named goddesses from the Continent who I can't think of right now.

So, I was wondering, is anyone present, aware of any theologically-based terms or denotations that can describe such a religious belief [examples of the sort of therms I'm after are: henotheism, polytheism, monotheism, et al.] ? I ask, of course, because if I describe it in these terms, and even seem to hint at (despite the evidence of my argument) a schema whereby "all gods are one god, and all goddesses are one goddess" I'd be pilloried as not only a "history revisionist", but a "Fluff Bunny" of the highest degree, because everyone has been told that such a schema is an invented fiction with no bases in ancient history that was advanced by we "Wiccans" (though I do not call myself by that title, because of it's "Fluffy" connotations, these days).

By the way, in re-reading many of my books by noted Celtic scholars (specialists in the field), I see that all of them are firm in their belief that the Insular lit. [the great Irish epics] represent and reflect the ancient Irish paganism to one extent or another, and are filled with evidence of gods and goddesses. But, when one reads Hutton's "The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles" he says with authoritarian zeal that these texts represent no pagan evidence nor present deities of any kind! How can he make these claims when they are no only so extremist, but atypical, and contrary to what actual specialists in the field of Celtic Studies are saying? Personally, I was also skeptical about his claim that he had Miranda Green read his sections on Celtic history when they were so far divorced from his actual views! One wonders what sections of his book she *actually* read? But, sadly, far too many Pagans uncritically cite Hutton, as though he is representative of all of academia (his authoritative voice is obviously detrimental in this regard; would it kill him to admit when he's speculating and use blatant qualifiers when a topic is still opoen to conjecture like European scholars are so fond of doing?!), when he's not--and they just don't understand that, I'm afraid. And, this is most worrisome of all!

Another thing that really bothers me about Pagans, as a whole, is their seemingly desperate NEED to pidgeon-hole certain so-called "Dark"-Goddesses, such as the Kali Ma and the Morrighan! As a result, if one doesn't define them as essentiually blood-thirsty, despite actual evidence to the contrary, they are labled with the upmost scorn! Kali is a primary example of this and contemporary Pagan ignorance to how She is factually worshipped! Unless one views Her as dangerous and threatening (even Deborah Lipp someone castigated me--as she is a Kali worshipper--for suggesting anything to the contrary, despite actual Hindu worship) in spite of the fact that Kali is generally not offered blood sacrifices (unless, of course, by the seeming fringe element) and in a great many districts (even in the US) she is viewed (even physically when Her statues are hewn) as compassionate and loving! But, we Pagans tend to remain ignorant of this evidence, and should we happen to hear it, we disregard it with blatant cavalear! But, my own goddess--The Morrighan--is another story.

In the following article: http://wicca.timerift.net/gods/morrigan.html The author sites one "historian" named TW Rolleston and goes on to claim that "historiants" (plural!) are against identifying the mother-goddess, Anu, with the Morrighan. But, how CAN they be when it's actually in the Irish epics where The Morrighan is listed as another identity OF (rather than a mere alternate "aspect" or association with) Anu! So, what "historians" is she talking about; and how can this Rolleston fellow be against this comperison when it's in black and white? I flipped through the book in question at the Half Price Bookstore, and Rolleston doesn't say; he just claims that another scholar identifies the two deities (as if they are seperate and entirely distinct personas), but he disagrees with such a position. Ugh... Crap like that makes me want to bash my red head in! LOL!

Okay, enough ranting from me, guys. ;o)

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

"Celtic Causeways"?!

MacMorrighan — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:30:13 GMT

Hey guys, calling all CELTO-PHILES!!! A while back (well, within the last 5-6 years) I happened to record a prgram on the Discover (or some other) Channel by the name of "Celtic Causeways". Sadly, before I realized what potent relivence it might yield for a number of research projects (I think this was slightly before I started researching an Morrighan in any great detail) I taped over it!!! Ugh... Anyway, I'd love to be able to watch it again, to see what scholars were involved, and if they have written any articles about their findings! All I recall of this ep. is that it provides more evidence for Celtic ritual-belief and practices during the Iron Age: The Celts frequently made causeways (which are functionally more like piers, rather than bridges) where the devoted would usually go in order to deposit votive offerings to the gods, or spirits of the Otherworld that reside in the water. These rites also seem to be somehow associated with the lunar eclipse, because they were able to figure out that this causeway was usually repaired during the year of an eclipse! I also remember that some of the beams or posts employed during the construction happened tpo be made from honeysuckle. Anyway, this was all that I happen to remember from this ep. Soooooo...I was wondering if anyone might have happened to record this program, also, and be able to dub it onto a DVD for l'il ol' me? ;o) It never hurts to ask.

Take Care,
Wade

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

Free haggis in Druid Womb

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:00:17 GMT

Free haggis in Druid Womb!

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

Date for samhaine

lennyshirose — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 23:34:32 GMT

Anyone have ideas they would share about how this might have been done?
I stumbled on something a while ago (by Ellis maybe?) that suggested the Celts used a system of astrology similar to the Indian system (makes sense) dividing the sky into 12 lunar mansions (I'm assuming the calculation of the festival date was an astrological one--is that reasonable?). Any thoughts?

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 5 replies

Extent Indo-Eiropean Celtic Festivals?

MacMorrighan — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:14:12 GMT

Hey guys, I am presently performing such original research (so far as I know!). Anyway, I was wondering if anyone here might be aware of any scholastic journal articles or books that pontificate about the apparent Indo-European cultural and religious themes from many extensive cultures as they align with Samhain, Imbolc (for which I have found some in Rome as well as Lithuania!), Beltane and Lughnasadh! Sadly, to date, I haven't found any (which is why I ask). But, these same seasonal portals are also roughly found in China! Although, given this occurence in China and Lithuania, there's a possibility that it may also be pre-Indo-European. This comperative methodology, for what it's worth, is known as phenomonology. Sadly, I have read no material that saught to deal with I-E religious holidays!

Also, I'm interested in researching the providence of the hearth-deities (esp. I-E), but...I've found no academic literature that has decided to discuss this particular phenomenon. Is anyone presently familiar with any? (If course, there are many hearth-goddesses, from Hestia, Vesta, Brighid, Gabija, and Tabieta, etc.!) Heck, it seems like no scholars have studied *either* of these potential topics, so far as I know!

Take Care,
Wade MacMorrighan
http://MacMorrighan.CovenSpace.Com

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

Holy day or seasonal celebration

Saigh — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:24:45 GMT

I still have that compulsion, to do one seasonal ritual and call the season "done." I KNOW that this is a hold over of my Wiccan past, with some influences of modern Christianity as well (although I beleive older Christian practices probably more resembled Jewish practices where holy times are several days). To SOME extent we have begone the process of the seasonal acknowledgment being over a period of time as long as what is typically defined as "ritual" is done only once. And I KNOW that this is a wrong idea...intellectually I know that the celebrations of a season must have been a process themselves, carried out over days. There isn't a lot of any material on the rituals of Celtic cultures, so I'm focusing this on developing current practices more than what is traditional, but I also feel we can look at other related cultures for support in the idea that the season is not "done" in one ritual.

I mean I could see that the process of winterizing the house was part of Samhuinn and "dewinterizing" it as part of Bealtuinn. Then when we moved up here and started raising chickens the sacrifice was also part of Samhuinn, there was some ritual to that but obviously not the same sort of thing we do up the Hill. But, and these are the two holy times that seem to take up the most required activities, we felt that the ritual stuff had to be allatoncenomatterwhat! I've not been able to break away from that.

Now that we both work full time, I really feel that we need to push the idea. Because we're not going to have anyone else to handle these things anytime soon (like, you know, this lifetime).

I know I'm not the only one who is CR to have this issue. I recall discussions with CRs and proto-CRs about how they couldn't even participate in other rituals because you "can only do the holiday once." (this was, in part, because I sometimes led small rituals for a little mixed discussion group that asked members to lead rituals in their traditions each season and some thought I should not do that and ritual with the group I then worked with...things like that)

With just two of us trying to do it all in one ritual becomes complicated. I put out and relight the fires on both these holidays, as we keep a different fire for the dark half and the light half of the year (there is more documentation for this at Bealtuinn, but I do remember seeing material for Samhuinn as well ...and there is some old ritual drama that I had liked from a previous group involved even if there is no way to do it with fewer than a dozen people in the very least so that's not an actual part of the ritual although the tale might get told). This draws out the beginning of the ritual quite a bit. Then we do the stock blessing on Bealtuinn, and with just two of us we can't exactly take animals up with us other than the hounds (and we're just NOT going to get the chickens to herd through the fires, despite our sheepdog's determination). And Samhuinn is rather drawn out and involved anyway....so....

And this year I want to do a special ceremony for the new foal we're getting next week, as Saoradh was included in the first ritual after we got him, Bealtuinn. But with just us, again, we're not going to take a mostly still wildish filly up to the ritual site, fire and all.

So, this is the year I am determined to put a stop to this single ritual practice. We're going to bless the animals as the beginning, we will not be using fire for this anyway as that will take some work with the filly and the chickens just aren't going to accept it (when we do the "passing through the fires" at Bealtainn with the chickens, we keep them in the chicken house and I walk around it with a smoldering cauldron). On Nov. 5th, most likely, we'll do a ritual down in the farm yard, as that will be her 6 month birthday and Saoradh's first ritual was May 5 (and yes, that had something to do with why this is our foal and not one of the other possibilities). I will do a ritual to put out the old fire sometime after that. Then we sacrifice the chickens on another day. And I will light the new fire when we do the feasting ritual which I'll try very hard to stop thinking of as the "ritual that does the holiday."

Well, that's the plan in my head. It may change by the time we actually do this.

This is just my brain storming about this issue, my UPG form of learning to celebrate the SEASON rather than the day. I always felt that if CR ever developed groups that really worked, there would probably be several rituals involved in the holidays...as well as some subgroups doing, say, ecstatic ritual for their path at other times. That a household, especially if they live far from where the main group celebrates and therefore have local Spirits and possibly human members who can't make the larger ritual to consider not leaving out, might hold a household ritual at some point in conjunction with the group gathering together. And warriors might gather for specific rites at some point and place while bards might at another or the priest/esses of particular Deithe meet separately as well as together. While, as usual, we don't have a lot of documentation for this, we do know that different social groups doing separate things are at least somewhat traditional in Gaelic society...as McNeill notes that adolescents would gather together for bonfires at Samhuinn, apart from adults.

I'm very interested in if other CRs have begun developing multiple seasonal ritual work or not and how they might do this, as well as anything that those of other Reconstructionist traditions might have to offer whether they're struggling with this too or have more concrete multi-day ways...or, indeed, do only have one day. So I'm crossposting this in my LJ, MySpace and Tribe journals as well as the LJ Reconstructionist group and CR groups on Tribe and MySpace. Hmmmm...might hit a Yahoo group or two as well. So I apologize for those who see a lot of this.

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

What do we do?

Saigh — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:07:33 GMT

This is sparked by a response on LiveJournal community where the OP had asked how different religions could be distilled to one word. Someone answered that CR would be "study." Now, honestly, I'm not trying to attack or pick on the commenter on that, it's just that it did spark this because this is a major concern of mine about the image of CR.

One of the things that we hoped that the FAQ would help people get over is this image that ALL CRs do is sit around reading and fighting about what we read with each other. While study IS important, it's vital to a movement that has no real groups to speak of, because we're all still building this, it's NOT how we PRACTICE. It's how we build our practices. And those of us who do have households often do have people in those households who don't study but are just as CR as those of us who are studying; they've learned through the more studious folks in the household. But even if we do study, it's not fully how we practice.

And we really do practice. I mean, the folks I know do anyway. Because Hospitality (my response to the question mentioned above) is, indeed, the basis of how we relate to the Gods, Spirits and Ancestors, some of us might practice only with a simple offering on an altar or in a natural space. Some of us have more elaborate ways of practice.

So my question is how do YOU practice CR?

My answers will come later in a comment.

I'm cross-posting this to the Pàganachd communities her, on LiveJournal and MySpace just to get more people involved....I hope this isn't a problem.

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 5 replies

ISO A "Chalice"... ;o)

MacMorrighan — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 06:45:53 GMT

Okay, now this may sound like a somewhat vague, and way-too-open-ended question, but... I am-- as time and funds allow-- searching for a very specific chalice! Now, granted, I already own one (you may view it on my Blog or Profile at: http://MySpace.Com/MacMorrighan ), but...I merely settled for "less than best" in this situation. Heck, I just don't have it within me to appreciate most of the chalices that I see for sale in Pagan stores in the US. *shrugs* Although, to your credit, I must admit that I do see an aweful lot of superior and beautiful ritual Regalia throughout the UK! But, I digress...

If someone here could turn to their copy of Janet and Stewart Farrar's brilliant The Witches' Goddess, and find photographic plate #18, that reads: "Arianrhod Ritual: The Dark Goddess and (on the right) the Bright Goddess." This same chalice also makes frequent appearances in their Witches Bible compilation. This is, asthetically-speaking, what I have been looking for in a "Chalice", but simply haven't seen one around.

And, so, I wrote a polite e-mail to them (that is to say I wrote Janet and Gavin) enquiring about their lovely chalice! Unfortunately, I seem to have lost that-- I saved it, but cannot seem to locate it anywhere... Anyway, they told me that in England they are popular wedding gifts (or, perhaps, they were at least when they wrote these books). So, they said I should check some stores about a certain posh-sounding area of London...but, of course, I'd lost that e-mail, and cannot recall the area or stores they recommended any clearer.

So...I was wondering if anyone here might recognize this sort of chalice (preferribly if it's real silver!) in any shops or even on-line (heck, preferribly if said "shop" has a web-site!). In fact, I thought to ask because I know so few Pagans from the UK, or many with such connections. Hey, it can't hurt, after all.

Okay, enough from me this evening...

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 2 replies

Ronald Hutton's beens erved!

MacMorrighan — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:02:34 GMT

LOL... With all due respect to prof. Hutton I've always wanted to be able to say that to someone, regardless of whom. ;o)

Anyway, Hutton apparently wrote an article by the name of: What Did Happen To Lindow Man? Why Britain's best known bog burial can no longer be used as evidence for human sacrifice on Friday, January 30, 2004 [http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/news/articles/TLS_LindowMan.pdf ]. However, in a responce [http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/news/articles/Lindowresponse.pdf ] to this article (on 7 February of the same year; I found these articles purely by accident, btw), one Dr. JD Hill, the curator for the British Museum's British and European Iron Age dept. responded in kind, stating that Hutton made a number of factual errors in his polemic, and was clearly 20 years behind the times and the latest research and evidence!

Hmmm...I wonder what latest research is being advanced (and by what scholars) concerning the theory that the bog bodies are likely evidence for Iron Age Sovereignty Rites?

Personally, I found Hill's responce very refreshing, and would like to thank him some how! After all, it still worries me that no professional scholars of whom I am aware have censured Hutton in any way for his methodological short-comings (that's being polite), or for his sentance structure that implies that he (Hutton) has an omniscient or exhaustive knowledge on a given subject, when, in fact he's simply wrong; or how he refuses to balance the equasion, if you will, by dismising without thought scholars that disagree with the British academic school of thought or institution [eg. Eva Pocs, among many others]; factual errors; how he is allowed to blatantly mischaracterize an author's thesis [eg, Prof. Carlo Ginzburg] as though what evidence Carlo presents isn't really what it means (in other words, he's misinterpreting Ginzburg); as well as refusing to ask some very impoirtant inquestions that should have been evident to him from the very beginning! Of course, I could go on, and on, but I wouldn't wanna' bore anyone; time is also short, tonight. :o)

These are very important concerns of mine, and I believe that scholars should strive to acknowledge them, because left unchallenged they give a highly misleading impression.

Moreover, I must admit, I find it delightfully ironic that an Archaeologist is repremanding a Historian! After all, it was Hutton in his Stations of the Sun who made the pompous claim that (paraphrasing) Historians simply know more than Archaeologists, because the latter are not Historians!

Of course, I have many, many, reasons for not being able to wholey trust Prof. Hutton-- he was the primary promt that disillusioned me so deeply against Professional Historians (some of these are outlined below):

What bothers me so deeply is how if one dares to question Hutton (regardlessly of how small) they are thoughtlessly dismissed. Sometimes I am called a "History Revisionist" (a term I find particularly offensive), or have been told I'm simply biased, or don't know what I'm talking about, or even, that I'm just pissed because Hutton didn't tell me what I wanted to hear, and so I'm just pitching a fit and looking for any petty excuse to decry him, etc. *sigh* Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that Professional scholars can simply look the other way, and turn a blind eye, to the problems deeply engrained within his texts!

I must admit that the more I learn, the less seriously I am able to take British academia! Yet, British scholars severely come across as though they look down on other geographical branches of academia save theor own-- as though it's seriously them against he world! And, yes, I know that sounds extreme, but I tend to see such an attitude far too often to believe much ese.

Someone asked me, recently (as if it's some sort of sin), why I qualified my endorsement of Ronald Hutton so severely. I should have been more specific than what I was. So, I would like to devote this thread to that. What follows is merely the examples that I could think of, and tack down in his books, within the past few days. Also, I would like to refer the reader to these reviews by Max Dashu and Asphodel P. Long of his The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles; apparently, after Long's review was published, Ronald wrote the journal a letter informing them (according to the Ed., with whom I spoke) that he didn't know enough about the topic before writing about it: http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/hutton_review.html (though Hutton stated that Max Dashu "isn't a scholar of any sort!" in a private e-mail that was posted on one Pagan site; the author of said "site" refused to acknowledge Dashu's fair criticism of Hutton, dismissing her thoughtlessly as incorrect purely due to political motives) and http://www.asphodel-long.com/html/pagan_religions.html

Unfortunately, one problem right off the bat is how Hutton is often thoughtlessly dismissive of other scholars that have an opposing view point, as though they're entirely inconsequential. As a result, Hutton's work is sorely in need of an objective stance; he needs to "balance the equasion", if you will... Indeed, he's far too keen on ONLY recommended and advancing those scholars which AGREE with him. It's a shame, however, that many rather gullible Pagans simply wave this through, under the banner of so-called "academic rigour"!!! (Honestly, I'm just a li'l offended by that!) Furthermore, it has come to my attention that Hutton really isn't in the habit of writing a histiography-- other-wise they'd surely be FAR more balanced and objective!-- but works of polemic (there's a major difference)! Here is a list, for ease-of-reference, of many quite egregious problems I have found with his writings:

1.) Ronald Hutton (The Stations of the Sun), in his minimalist zeal, claims that any such notion positing divination within the realms of Samhain were based upon "the flimsy nature" of the evidence gathered by two outstanding British scholars (John Rhys and Keating); evidence which is now believed to be inconsequential in Hutton's *opinion*. Rather, Hutton merely *thinks* that these two academics were in error when gathering the local folk-traditions throughout the British Aisles (an accusation he believes should have been apparent to them from the beginning) because the existence of purification rituals and divination "could be explained either by a connection to the most eerie of Christian feasts (All Saints) or by the fact that they ushered in the most dreaded of all the seasons." Unfortunately, he offers no documented evidence to support his thesis—- just an opinion portrayed as though it were empirical fact. (Where's the evidence, Ron!?!?!) For example, nowhere in this tome does he expressly find any documentation that the Christian feast of All Saints was in any way perceived of as "eerie"—- all we have is his lauded opinion. Nor does Prof. Hutton supply any documentation that portrays the genesis of British divination as one that results from this most "dreaded of all seasons" [Hutton 1996: 363]! Had he bothered to do so, I would have found that to be a far more convincing argument. Hutton's "opinion", here, is clearly unsubstantiated! Why he's putting it forth as fact is anyone guess. Actually, in retrospect, it looks like he's simply selling out, making a name for himself, by brown-nosing the skeptical rationalists! ("Skeptical rationalists" can be defined as those that believe if a thesis can be questioned—- regardless of how feeble their line of questioning or reasoning—- that their thesis is, by default, the correct thesis!) Be that as it may, Hutton apparently believes, privately, that a lack of evidence does not necessarily equate to evidence of non-existance. Gee, you wouldn't know it from his texts! But, I digress... What Hutton also failed to take into account is the endemic folkloric evidence of divination throughout the aisles. Often times divination involves the use of hazelnuts, and often for the purpose of love, rather than survival enquiries, despite how Hutton might paint it. Hazelnuts were sacred to the paleo-pagan Celts and are numerously found in medieval Irish mythological tracts. Furthermore, he seems to have an open disdane for other theories of any kind, yet...he's more than happy (and ready) to supplant his own! Hypocritic, n'est pas?

2.) What bothers me is how Hutton has, rather, engendered a sort of overt form of blind skepticism in modern Pagans where no proof is proof enough to them (perhaps cynicisim might be more apt a denotation)! Now, skepticism is a good thing! However, I don't believe that one should be blindly skeptical. Hutton exemplifies this beautifully when discussing Margaret Murray. As I understand it he basis the demollishion of her as a respectible authority on two primary scholars, Norman Cohn and Kieth Thomas. Well, Cohn is the most problematic of the bunch! Cohn often uses one's age as ammunition to dismiss and critique an author or idea-- and he does likewise to Murray, when he writes, "by the time she turned her attention to these matters she was nearly sixty.[!]" This is discriminatory, and Hutton should have seen this going on in Cohn's book Europe's Inner Deamons—- there's really no excuse in that he ignored it! (Hutton should be ashamed of indirectly endorsing this! In fact, if I recall, back in 1999 in a review of "A Coven Of Scholars" that he wrtote, he actually seems to endorse it when applied towards an unpopular scholar) Then Cohn grossly misrepresents Murray and hence asssassinates her character for generations to come! Cohn accused her of ommitting from the testimony of alledged "witches" anything that would have discredited her-- this is a mendacious lie on Cohn's part! Cohn also accuses her of failing to discuss the problematic nature of certain evidence, which is apparently not the case, for Murray *does* discuss the problematic nature of this "evidence"! Furthermore, if one goes back to compare and contrast what Cohn was saying of Murray with what Murray actually wrote, you would be stupified. In fact, she had apparently not ommitted these passages (as Cohn alleges), but considered them in detail! Indeed, if this is so, it would be practically scandelous that Hutton would be entirely unaware of this, or havng never checked, and just rather blindly relyed upon the "say-so" of another author. (Heck, it's academic suicide, IMO!!!) Now, this is not to say that Murray does not need extensive up-dating; she wrote in the 1930s, after all! But, the scholars that have alledgedly discredited her need to seriously rethink their position. Moreover, during the last week of October I decided to read a little more of my copy of Ginzburg's The Night Battles and read something equally astonishing: According to Prof. Ginzburg, the (now) late Prof. Cohn pretty much pulled the same stunt with Ginzburg's own work! Ginzburg says, "Equally unjustified on the other hand, in my opinion, is the assurance with which [Norman] Cohn, in a polemic with [J.B.] Russell (and also because of a misrepresentation of my book) concluded that, 'the experiences of the benandanti...were all trance experiences.'" [pp. xiv]. However, the late Prof. Cohn would have dismissed this all as illusory and, hence, inconsequential without a second thought! (Hutton himself similarly mischaracterizes Ginzburg's book, albeit more egregiously, as though if he repeats something often enough it'll become fact!) I must admit that I find this pattern deeply disturbing. After all, Hutton's certainly dismissed scholars with whom he fundamentally disagreed for pulling the same crap as Normal Cohn did (even for pulling much less than Cohn and others!). I also find it hard to believe that Hutton could have, in good consciousness, been ignorant of these scholastic failings... That is an unfortunate mistake... Hutton seriously needs to rescind, or at the VERY least, qualify his endorsement of Norman Cohn as a scholar! However, he blatantly refused to do this, even as early as a 2003 issue of [The Cauldron (a British Pagan Journal), despite this evidence. It simply makes Hutton look biased, I'm afraid, and a rather poor scholar, to boot. Honestly, as will be seen again, and again, I have noticed a marked sanctamonious attitude in Hutton's writings—- the rules he applies to others, he does not often apply to himself. A friend of mine that's getting his PhD quipped it to me this way, "Hutton plays fast and loose with the rules."

Heck, Coh lists some very hard to believe reasons for dismissing some entirely uncoerced witchcraft trials! One man was cassually questioned by the authorities, for being what was known as a "Free Spirit", because they were known to practice both male and female homosexuality as they saw the refusal of such desires to be the only "sin". Well, along comes Norman Cohn that completely, without thought, dismissed this account, because the individual was apparently, to him (bearing in mind the man's been dead for centuries, and Cohn has no degree in Psychology!), a "paranoid megalomaniac", "schizophrenic", or "nihilistic"!

No scholars seemed to question Cohn's thinking in *any* way! These seem awefully far-fetched "excuses" for dismissing evidence, to me. I mean c'mon, who's he trying to bull shit!!! In fact, another historian simply dismisses this Medieval individual as "psychopathic"! I, for one, have never seen such abhorrant methodology in all my life, especially when advanced as so-called "academia"!

Refuting other textual documentation that would have refuted Cohn's main thesis (that there were no witches, nor any sense of paleo-pagan "survival") Cohn accuses a few women that freely admitted to attending a sabbat and of night travel of being sinile, when he says of them that this is "something that has hitherto happened in the minds of silly old women." This is not only ageist (his distinctive trade mark), but sexist!

Sadly, Cohn's lies are still repeated by Hutton and other British scholars as though they are empirical facts!

3.) The Stations of the Sun: In a footnote for Chapter 40, Hutton claims empirically of Celticist Dr. John Carey, that he has been yielding astonishing results about paleo-pagan Samhain beliefs and practices from a paper he delivered at The Institute of Historical Research, as well as in an issue of the academic Journal Eriu, which he was not able to acquire. Despite Hutton's claim, according to the above-mentioned friend of mine which has as his academic advisor, Prof. Carey—- not only did the article at hand not deal with Samhain in any significant way, but Carey has never set foot onto "that learned Institution" [ie, The Institute of Historical Research]! (Carey's still curious about why Hutton made this claim.)

4.) In Pagan Religions, Ronald says, "...Odin sacrifices himself to himself, and so gains arcane wisdon. It is one of the most haunting passages in Norse literature, in which readers can at least feel close at least to the inner world of norther European paganism. Or can they? Can it be that the entire episode is the Crucifixion translated into Scandinavian myth? Christ and Odin are both hanged upon a tree (the latter being the common medieval term for a scaffold, applied very often to the cross). Both are pierced by spears, thirst, cry out and are resurrected with infinately greater glory (Odin after nine days, Christ after three). All this is surely too much to be coincidental, and although present-day scholars are divided over whether it is a Chrstian poem or not, it seems beyond question that its form was heavily influenced by Christianity. So, after all, it seems to tell us little about the nature of the older religions of Scandinavia" [pp. 296-7; 1991]. However, rather hypocritically, if you ask me, Hutton bases his conclusions only on the similarities, rather than acknowledging their fundamental differences-- an offense he levied upon such "poor" scholars as Frazer, for example! After all, had any other researcher claimed that the similarities between Osiris, Adonis, Dummuzi, etc. were the most likely authentic anecedants to the Christ myth (because they were obviously "too much to be coincidental") you can be sure that he would have stomped them into the ground with scorn! Indeed, Hutton almost seems too eager to casually default to a Christian explaination—- and it does often appear that Hutton has shifted the burdon of proof (see what I wrote of "skeptic rationalists, above). It is also interesting to note that the Catholic Church has, astonishingly, made many Encyclopedia publishers alter texts that do not portray them in anything but a positive light! But, I digress... Of course, at first glance, it sounds amazingly convincing, for those that don't know much about shamanism (or any topic with which Hutton concerns himself—- he appears to may an iron-clad concincing case to those that don't know any betetr), or even Indo-European studies (something Hutton never brings into play throughout this specific text), etc.! However, I have to wonder if, at this point, Hutton was familiar the works of Mircea Eliade (particularly his master-work, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstacy—- a book he later treats as flawed and inconsequential in future writings)? So many contemporary-early, as well as modern (recent) scholars seem to go on about Heathenism being drenched in a various form of shamanism—- yet, this is all but denied in Hutton's book dealing with the subject. One wonders why this corpus of academia is being ignored? To briefly excerpt Davidson Gods & Myths of the Viking Age: "It was thought at one time that this image of the suffering god hanging from the tree must have been derived from the Christian Crucifixion. But, despite certain resemblences, it would seem that here we have something whose roots go deep into heathen thought, and which is no late copy, conscious or unconscious, of the central mystery of the Christian faith. By hanging on a tree, Odin is not sharing in the suffering of the world or saving men from death, but he is there to win the secrets of the runes..." [pp. 144; 1964]. She also goes on to relate that a variety of shamans are "made" by climbing the World Tree (or axis muni), which is a strong "northern" motif. While, other shamanic parallels are also noted: Like the shamans of the Mongols, both they and Odin tethered their respective horses to their percieved "World Trees". This scene is also clearly one in which Odinn is being "sacrificed" in the manner pre-dating the Viking age. For example—- this pre-viking practice entailed that prisoners/sacrifices be hung onto trees which was continued clear up until the 10th. century at Uppsala. I also believe that there may be an echo between Frejya teaching Odinn Her especial Magick, and the Yakut "Bird Mother of Prey" who carries off the prospective shaman to learn his abilities to "shamanize". Indeed, if we accept that this is actually an axis mundi (as Hutton seems hesitant to do, well...actually refusing to acknowledge), than we can clearly see the death and rebirth theme embodied in the psychological transformation of "Authentic"/"Spontanious Initiation"! Davidson also states that Odinn is depicted hanging from a tree in an early Swedish rock art—- though, of what date, I have no idea. Would it be fascinating to find this out? Abso-freakin'-lutely! This is one fascinating claim that I would, personally, love to research! But, unfortunately, in this particular text, Davidson did not relate any information about this stone with which one may use to find further information concerning it. Too bad... But, to back-track slightly, because Odinn is undergoing this horrific experience, I would definately be willing to assert that it is an Initiation experience, due to the fact that He is acquiring a special form of knowledge embodied in a very masculine form of old Norse Magick, known as galdr, which is respectively idetified with the casting of runes. The shamanistic extent by which Odinn is certainly identified is noted in a great many prose tales in which the God appears. Another VERY important question that Hutton should address—- otherwise, I think he's making some rather grand methodological leaps!—- is if this medieval term for a cross/scaffold is found in Germany/Scandinavia; or if it's only found in English/British areas (of which he is, generally, a scholar)? Ater all, if it doesn't appear in Germany or Scandinavia, than Hutton's reductionist theory—- a school of thought that is now rather untenible—- would be impossible to accept! Something else leaps to mind that Hutton also seems to have glossed over: the Christ was NOT "hanged" on a tree; he was nailed to a cross and crucified! Now, Odinn, however—- he WAS literalled "hanged" from a tree. They apparently, so far as I will advance, two completely differenbt modes of dying/death! And, still, I remain skeptical of Hutton's beliefs concerning the World Tree upon which Odinn is hung as being code-word for the cross, unless he could demonstrate that it was similarly known by such language in Germany/Scandinavia when, and especially WHERE, this particular poem was WRITTEN. Now, to my knowledge, he didn't do this—- we're merely supposed to accept him at his word. My own opinions to the side, according to a friend of mine with Asatruar connections, Hutton is apparently 150 years behind the times. "The idea that the Norse myths were substantially affected by either Christianity or Classical Learning was argued by Sophius Bugge. In a series of famous debates with Viktor Rydberg, Bugge's position was defeated, and Rydberg was considered to have fairly won the debates. Rydberg was able to demonstrate the strong Indo-European base to the Germanic myths" [pers. comm.]

5.) Hutton says, again, in Pagan Religions: "None of these images ['Green Man' carvings] could have been a beloved pagan deity, placed in churches by popular demand. The context of this idea was destroyed with the collapse of the Murray thesis, but like that thesis it could hardly have been argued at all by anybody with a real knowledge of the Middle Ages. No churchmen across the entire span of the period described them as such. St. Bernard, in a passage most accessibly printed by Sheridan and Ross, did inveigh against the burgeoning fashion for Romanesque at the beginning of the twelfth century; but his invective does not in fact prove the point suggested by these authors, for he condemned the images as grotesque, silly and expensive, not as pagan. There is abundant evidence, mostly from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, for the sort of people who paid the masons and comissioned the carvings. Occassionally the whole parish did so, but much more often those responsible were churchmen (above all bishops and abbots), landowners and wealthy merchants. The central point in The Witch Cult in Western Europe was that ordinary people remained adherants to the 'Old Religion' while the ruling class was Christian. And it was that class that determined how churches were decorated. The Wild Man, Sheela-na-Gig and Green Man were all products of that tremendous upswelling of of medieval culture which has been called the Twelfth-Century Renaissance. And like the more famous later Renaissance it ws a Christian movement, even though it drew upon ancient ideas and images" [pp. 316]. However, Medievalist Samantha Riches, in her monograph St. George [Sutton, 2000] argues the following point: "The haunting image of the 'Green Man'-- the foliate face, redolent of the natural world, which sits so uneasily in Christian churches-- has been identified as a pre-Christian form of St. George. It acts as a reminder of his role as an icon of natural fertility; in fact, 'Green George' is a name sometimes given to this image, which may act as a symbol of the return of spring after the temporary triumph of winter. An interesting echo of this aspect of St, George is found in an Islamic analogue known as 'Al khidr', 'Al Khadir', 'El Khudr', 'Khizr' or 'Jiryis Baqiya'. This figure is particularly associated with the area around Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. He is also recognized by Jews under the name 'Eliyahu ha Navi', who is considered to be a special guardian of Israel, and by local Christians as 'Mar Jiryis'; much of the rebuilt church over the shrine at Lydda was converted to a mosque, and it seems that the tomb was positioned squarely between the two sections of the building, and was thus available to both Christian and Moslem devotees. The various names applied to this holy character equate to terms such as 'Living One', 'the Green One' and 'the Ever Green One'; he is thought to derives from the Greek sea god Glaucos, whose name means 'the Blue One' or 'the Green One', a fisherman who achieved immortality, and hence the status of a god, after eating a seashore herb that he had noticed restored his fish to life. Utnapishtim, a charachter in the Gilgimesh epic, attained immortality in a remarkibly similar way, and this parallel may indicate another influence.

"Al Khidr (and his alternative appelations) is reputed to have found the Fountain of Youth, or the Well of Life, which is said to be located near the confluence of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Drinking from the fountain confers immortality, and it is claimed that Al Khidr has been repeatedly killed and resurrected; one story involves the martyrdom at the behest of a pagan king. Some traditions state that Al Khidr bathed three times in the Well of Life: in consequence, his skin and all his apparel turned entirely green, and he leaves green foot prints wherever he goes. [...]" [pp. 33] Not only would it appear that we have an image of a paleo-pagan Deity from Indo-European consequence, but...Hutton appears to be angaging in intimidation tactics. According to another friend of mine, scholars all over the place—- though, seemingly more so in the US and UK—- practice intimidating other academics from voicing a difference in scholastic opinion (usually that of the minority). Stating that "no one with a real knowledge of the Medieval period" would say such-and-such is clearly intimidating! Indeed, this is often why scholars cannot follow protocol and admit that there are reputible views that differ from their own, because there is a large tactic of suppression taking place.

6.) In Triumph of the Moon I found this interesting tidbit, that never seemed to add-up. Basically, Hutton seems to be claiming that there's no evidence for the iconography of The Devil having stemmed from paleo-pagan images from other Deities: "The half-animal nature of the horned god, after all, gave him a much more obvious parallel in Christian mythology than the figure of Jesus, and one absolutely opposed. There is here, indeed, a fascinating possibility which must be left open, because at present we appear to lack a propper study of images of the Devil in modern culture, to complement a large amount of first-rate scholarship upon those in ancient and medieval times. Between 1100 and 1700, both artistic representations and confessions extracted from alleged witches certainly portray Satan at times as half-goat, and often with horns. More often, however, the horns are those of a bull, and his most common characteristics are clawed feet, long ears, and wings (or a bat or a dragon). He is also featured combined with a wide range of other animals, dogs and snakes being the most common, or a a black, or black-clothed, man. It does seem as if the standard modern conception of the Devil as a being with cloven hooves, goat's horns and pointed beard is a ninteenth-century creation, representing a growing Christian reaction towards the importance of Pan as an alternative focus for the literary imagination." [pp. 46]. Yet, in J.B. Russell's 1977 monograph, The Devil (a scholar with whom Hutton is certainly familiar), we find the following statement in numerous transmutations: "The goat form of the Devil derives primarily from the image of Pan. From such theriomorphic ancestors the Devil inherited his claws, cloven hooves, hairiness, huge phallus, wings, horns, and tail" [pp. 254]. Hence, it seems to me that Huttons is severely down-playing this "transferrence", if you will.

7.) Hutton, unfortunatelty, is rather thoughtlessly dismissive of Hungarian Prof., Eva Pocs. In her lit.—- as well as the majority view amongst European scholars—- (from reading Hutton, however, it almost seems like it's the British scholars against the world!), she has found a distinct shamanistic antacedent in Medieval witchcraft belief. She investigated over 2000 records and documents, trials and testimonies from the time (the largest in recent history) to come to this conclusion! In fact, the vast majority of these documents would not be available to the Enghlish-speaker were it not for Prof. Pocs. In a PROPER historiography, Hutton should have at LEAST made mention that most scholars in Europe believe she does, and naming those scholars that are spear-heading this popular European thesis. Yet, such a converse thesis is "conveniently" ignored in Hutton's lit., as though such a disagreeing thesis from any scholar did not exist! However, (finally) in responce to it, Hutton only engages in pure *pedantry* in that 2003 ed. of The Cauldron. In fact, it takes him so long to respond to the mention of Pocs that one wonder's if he'd even read her lit. or merely taken the say-so of another collegue. Rather, Hutton entirely dismisses Pocs. as inconsequential because, "like most British scholars" he *believes* she uses the word "shamanistic" incorrectly—- he believes it can *only* be applied to the tribal spiritual practices of the Arctic north, such as Siberia, never mind that her use of the term is only a freaking similie rather than a blatant metaphore of any sort! Am I the only one that finds this shocking and ill-educated on Hutton's part? Hutton seems, at least to me, to be scraping for any reason to reject a scholar or thesis! I, personally, find that *highly* insulting to my intelligence! Though, most of Hutton's dismissals I find highly insulting to my intelligence, for that matter.

8.) And, finally, a couple other points that really seemed to come to the surface this week, because they bothered me so desperately (I happened to by a new book last weekend by Peter Beresford Ellis that supplied a lot of tested-and-true evidence to the contrary; it's what brought this particular facet to mind, I believe): "...it may be seen already that there is a strong possibility that the whole concept of the Tuatha de Danaan was invented by storytellers, perhaps working in the early Christian era and influenced by the Graeco-Roman myths.... Goddesses rarely feature in the Irish literature as maternal or nurturing, being more often aggressive and vorascious in their sexuality and bloodlust. Whether they represented role models for self-assertive Celtic women, or the fantasies of pagan Celtic male warriors, or the nightmares of the Christian monks who wrote the stories, is an open questiion" [pp.152]. While on page 296 pf The Pagan Religions Hutton further claims, "It is very likely that when writing of the Tuatha de Danaan, the Irish were not recording something in which their ancestors believed but fitting old deities into a structure inspired by the Greek pantheon." He even makes the following claim back on page 152, "...there is no trace in the Irish or Welsh literature of any deity associated with the sun (or moon)." Well, what pf Graine(sp?), whose name means "Sun"? Etymologically, The Daghdha even seems certainly associated with the Sun, when many of his epithets are taken into account, as well, according to Dr. Daithi O hOgain. So, I must wonder what he is denoting as "evidence", and what has so convinced him? Hutton certainly doesn't say, and I believe he *should* have... I certainly would be fascinated in the reasons! But, I digress... Early Hutton seems to be claiming, in essence, is that what insular narrative literature we have on record [eg, The Tain] is purely a case of the mediaval Irish monks re-telling Greek myths! Whereas, Ellis states that several scholars are firm in their acknowledgement that insular narrative literature contains certain direct parallels to Indic/Hindu religion, culture and mythology...not just through linguistics. Now, Ellis has said something similar to this before, such as in his book The Druids, but it was confined seemingly to Celtic culture and linguistics. Here, he is far more forceful and applies it, also, to mythology, etc.! According to Ellis' The World of the Ancient Celts, Celticist Myles Dillon made this statement around 1977; there are scholars that have found similar seemingly-direct parallels through inscriptions, that only seem to reflect Hindu mythological themes, etc. Also, concerning the sexuality of the Celtic Goddesses, he doesn't seem very well versed in the Celtic Goddess as Sovereign-Goddess and Land-Goddess, which can explain such occurances, rather than male warrior fantasies, or Christian nightmares! In fact, amongs Celticists, this theory is as old as about the middle of the 20th century. *sigh* Looks like you're way behind the times, Ron!

Also of interest, an Alexandiran from New Zealand I've located has been tracking down and reading all of Hutton's sources in his Triumph Of The Moon, and found gross mischaracterization, as he relates two examples:

"1.) Hutton paints Leland as a crank and a forger, claiming that Aradia (Herodias) is clearly a figure from Christian not pagan theology and that no other Italian folklorist has found evidence for the Vangel. At this critical point in assassinating Leland's character, he neglects to mention that the eminent Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg famously identified the Benandanti, a cult with more than passing resemblance to the beliefs Leland recorded. Ginzburg also clearly demonstrated the non-Christian origin of the name Herodias ("Hera-Diana", which was normalised by the Church to "Herodias"). Despite Hutton purporting to critique Ginzburg's work elsewhere in TotM, he is either unaware of the main contents of Ginzburg's work, or he purposely ignores it. Other, more detailed scholarly analyses of Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches since have arrived at much more balanced conclusions (see the article). (Note that I'm not claiming there is a link between the Benandanti and Leland's strega, just that Hutton has misrepresented the facts.)

"2.) One of Hutton's most pivotal claims in TotM is that modern pagan witchcraft cannot be historically-based, because there was no witchcraft, or even any form of pagan religion on which witchcraft could be based, still existing by the early modern era. Apparently not a single person persecuted was a practitioner of a pagan religion. His main support of this is simply citing seven of his creme-de-la-creme of modern scholars, with very little supporting discussion. Some of these are in foreign language, but of those in English, at least two directly contradict Hutton, freely talking about the influences of old pagan religious practices. A particularly juicy chapter is in the cited book by Monter (I think it was Monter, not Midelfort, I don't have any of this in front of me), about white witchcraft, which evaluates the beliefs of witches in France and England, and describes how the "green devils" in the woods were probably old pagan gods and the saints' shrines to which ill people were sent were probably actually dedicated to old pagan gods with a Christian veneer. Of the other books he cites (that are in a language I can read) none make the claim that Hutton does. They demonstrate that most accused "witches" were normal Christians, but they certainly don't go as far as saying "not a single person accused...". A moderate familiarity with the current academic work on the witch-trial period actually reveals Hutton's position as extreme and atypical. (Note that this is not support for a widespread organised witch-cult in Europe, such as Margaret Murray proposed, just another instance of extreme oversimplification and misrepresentation of other authors.)

"These are two examples of extreme over-generalisation and oversimplification, a lack of balance, a bias or a POV if you will. I can't comment on Hutton's motives, but I've found similar fallacies and misrepresentations scattered through his work. Dashu, despite being labelled as a "feminist", has so far seemed remarkably balanced, and is, as far as I have been able to ascertain, solidly grounded in fact."

But, what I would REALLY like to know is why scholars have failed to censure Hutton, as though they're afraid of doing so, for fear of tarnishing their "reputations"! Where is the "check-and-balance" system? Of course, I could surely find further errors, if I went back to re-read every page he's ever written cover-to-cover! There are likely even those that I have forgotten over the eyars, such as this gem that comes to mind:

According to Hutton, in The Pagan Religions, the Gardnerian/Alexandrian (of course, he's citing Janet & Stewart Farrar) cocept of the Goddess cannot be attributated to paleo-paganism in any way—- but it stems soley from Zoroastrian, and by extension to Christianity. This is simply incorrect information and proves that he knows nothing about Zoroastrianism! Rather, Zoroastrianism deals with a seperate and distinct God of Light pitted against a seperate and distinct God of Evil! This is simply not found within the Thealogy of modern Pagan Witchcraft! Hence, Hutton is attempting to complicate Neo-Pagan religious thought more than it is; he is seperating a single Goddess into two, in essence. This simply shows his lack of understanding—- strange, however, given that he was a Gardnerian when writign this text! He even dedicated it to the Clan of the Oak—- albeit he qualified it with a blatant lie. Hutton wrote in the preface that he was accepted into this Clan, and many opther Groups, because he was a professional Historian! However, according t these groups that have since spoken out about the claim, Hutton was allowed into their practices because he was a vouched-for Gardnerian Witch! This is, yet, another example of his mendacity, I fear.

Okay, rant mode off... ;o)

Happy Holidays,
Wade
myspace.com/MacMorrighan
MacMorrigaine@AIM.Com

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

An Intro.

MacMorrighan — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 01:18:21 GMT

I'm a Witch, yes, a Witch-- just don't tell that to my folks that, or they'll accuse you of not being able to spell! LOL... Okay, that's my bad attempt at a joke that I ripped off-- err, ugh...I mean was "inspired by"-- Bell, Book, and Candle. *G*

I have been studying/practicing Witchcraft [not "Wicca," per se] for nearly a decade. However, my journey to this religion was quite an interesting one, to say the least. At first they seemed like random coincidence, however, when you have more than one coincidence right after the other, you have what is known as "synchonicity", which basically means that it was meant to happen. Even Carl Jung, who was a student of Freud, believed in synchonicity! He defines it as, "The coincidence in time of two or more causally unrelated events which have the same meaning."

It began with a life long interest in The Occult; a life-long "calling" if you will. I was never reared into many of the Christian trappings of guilt, even though my parents went to church on the extremely odd occasion (like, once every 10 years, or so)-- and for that I consider myself greatful. And, so, my jorney began... (Yeah, I can be heavy on metaphores!)

While I attended Junior High School I became quite environmentally aware (I was always a hippy at heart); and, also, quite interested in Native American religion, including my own Irish-Celtic heritage; much like many Witches that I know, I also absorbed all of the mythology that I could get my hands ahold of throughout Jr. High, etc. Two of my favourite books-- at that early time-- were the clasics: Bulfinch's Mythology and Brian Froud's Fairies. Though, these were really all I could really find in my very limited school district!

These formative years were quite literally years of progression: Because I was always pretty "psychic", from a very early age, I saught to explain these abilities-- I should also mention that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic at heart! So, I hit the books, trying to quench my desire for knowledge, which wasn't easy in the small town that I grew-up in, as the libraries were equally as small and sorely under stocked. I wanted to know how to explain them-- their physiological basis.

It seemed shortly after my initiation into the realms of parapsychology that my family & myself began to study the Mormon faith. And, it was also during this treatise, that my whole spiritual perception was forever changed: I, being the cheaky 12 year old I happened to be, took it upon myself to seriously question what I was told and asking some very advanced questions-- for any age, really! One such life-altering example occured one evening when the missionaries stopped by for their weekly "lesson". And, so, because we had been taught from the beginning that we are Jesus's brothers and sisters, and that we are God's children (literally), and having a basic working knowledge of genetics & family structure, I asked, 'Well, if we are God's children, and Jesus is our brother... Does God have a wife?', using the words and knowledge available to me at the time, for I had never really given time to thinking of (nor been exposed to) the feminine pronoun of "God" as "Goddess" per se, as a practical aspect of religion-- this was before my later interest in ancient religions. So, I simply used the word "wife". Their answer? "We believe He does, but...He loves Her so much that He does not reveal Her name to us!" Strange seeing as how they taught us that His actual Name was "Jehova"-- an ancient Pagan Name of the God from the Middle East who probably had a bull-cult! But, they admonished me with the following, "But, we don't pray to Her!" What the...?!?! Why in the world not?!?! "Nuts to that," I thought! And, it was from that moment that I began to pray to the Goddess.

But, my formal introduction into the religion of Witchcraft would wait until my first year of college. It was through a friend, naturally enough. She was performing some research on it, herself, and when I saw the word "Wicca" (having never been exposed to that term before) I simply asked her what it was. And, so began my journey into The Craft. Because, it pulled together everything I had experienced & believed & researched so much earlier in my life... It was truly a Home Coming!

I do consider myself lucky, however, because I knew that Witchcraft was nothing "evil" or in any way associated with any "devil" or other such nonsense. (It is interesting to note that the word demon was origionally Greek and, rather than referring to something "evil" originally denoted a genus, or spirit, with implications of "divine wisdom"; while in Latin, when rendered as daemon, it means "divinity" or "spirit"; and the word devil, actually means "little god".) Thanks, in no small part, to Leonard Nimoy's old 70s series 'In Search Of...' (I love that show; I still gladly make time to watch it whenever I catch it airing on Sci Fi). On one episode it did, in fact, detail a coven of American Witches and interviewed them so that we may walk away with a wonderful understanding of another religion, quite different from those that most knew. Incidentally, [perhaps this is synchronicity at work, again, as we will see?] the Coven of Witches was those presided over by Laurie Cabot!

But, I digress... My friend had only a passing interest in it, and soon dropped it altogether, which leads me to believe that I may have, perhaps, been lead down this Path from the very beginning-- because I firmly believe that many things happen for a reason-- call it "synchronicity"! Even physicists believe in synchronicity!-- Dr. F. David Peat defines it as: "coincidences that are so unusual and so psychologically meaningful they don't seem to be the result of chance alone." Thus, it is through synchronicity that we may be able to glimpse a deeper order to reality!

I found it utterly fascinating, and felt the calling of the Goddess, and that of my ancient Celtic heritage, once again, since all those long years ago. So, I began to further research it (as best I could, anyway). And, eventually found it frustrating, because I wasn't finding the answers to many of the questions I was asking-- questions which many books, at the time, seemed to avoid, with such dodgy answers as "You have to believe in spells for them to work!" without giving any rational, logical, or left-brained reason "to believe".

And so, in the time that I began to doubt my "faith" (relatively-speaking), I raised my voice in a silent petition to the Gods asking for Their guidance in answering the questions that I saught! (You have to realize that I come from a world in which "spells" are given over to the world of dreams and "fairy tales", with no factual basis in reality.) And, They did! A book found its way to me, as an answer to that humble prayer. It described, using Quantum Mechanics, a world and Universe that makes sense to the Witch! Having, since then, read a number of books on physics, I came up with the following analogy: The more I read about it, the more the Universe seems like the film The Matrix, if you've seen it (I happened to be reading a book on physics [The Holographic Universe], one evening, while The Matrix was airing on HBO, I believe, when this conclusion occured). But, I digress... The book-- which still holds a highly place on my book shelf and those that I can in good consciousness recommend-- was Laurie Cabot's The Power of the Witch: A Witch's Guide to Her Craft. (The two chapters, "Alpha" and "The Science of Witchcraft" are worth the cost of the book alone!)

Soon after, however, my Matron-Goddess, The Morrighan ["Great Queen"] came to me upon one Lughnasadh Eve. It's quite a lovely story, and I hope you enjoy it [it's actually one of my favorite stories to tell!]:

"Generally-speaking, if you ask most ol'-time Witches, they'll tell you that the Gods choose us, rather than the other way around. I live in a small town (a farming community) surrounded on all sides (for miles) by farms, fields & farmers! And, in the field in front of me, off in the distance (on the Eve prior to Lughnasadh) I was treated to a spectacular fireworks display! I have often wondered if the farmers new that this was the Eve of a Sabbat, or that it was at least a Harvest Feastival!?!?!? So, soon after the last whisp of light faded into the warm embrace of the night, I went back inside, and retired to bed. That night, one of The Morrighan's triplicities (whom is also frequently honoured on Lughnasadh) came to me in a dream; She came to me in the guise of the Macha ['Plain' or 'Field']! And, because I'm sure The Goddess knows how stubborned and left-brained I can sometimes be, She came to me on the Eve after Lughnasadh; this time as The Morrighan, dressed in Her dark robes & vestments. That was enough for me to take the hint! I have worshipped Her ever since! And, since, I have heard music in the call of the crow...felt Her black wings of protection & love! After all, we worship the Old Gods because we love Them." Also, contrary to what modern Pagans like to believe, She was not (and is not) a War-Goddess, but an Earth-Goddess-- at least according to to modern academia, as I have reseaarched Her.

Furthermore, my "Pagan name", if you will, came via similar means, as well. Albeit, a very few years there after. It is merely a spiritually adopted surname: Wade MacMorrighan [Ir., "Wade Son of The Morrighan"*]. It came to me, one quiet night, during a light state of trance. And, being as stubborn, as I often am, I could not accept it at face value. So, I had to validate it, rather than seem somewhat foolish in adopting a senseless spiritual name. And, it so happens that it was correct! As with all things, I neither chose this name, nor the Goddess whom I serve!

* Similar to other such Irish-Gaelic names, although this patronymic happens also to be Scottish-Gaelic, as Manannan mac Lir [Ir., Manannan "Son of the Sea"], Aengus Mac Og [Aengus the "Son of Youth"] or Mac Grinene [Ir., "The Son of the Sun"], etc.

Oh, and, incidentally, because of my belief in synchronicity, I am in the process of writing a few books, too (more than a few, actually)! For about 3 months straight, I'd talk to several fellow pagans, or dear friends of mine (this was about 3 years ago), and talk about this-or-that, and each one would say to me, "You should write a book!" So, I am! I'm actually co-authoring two with a well known British Pagan author-friend of mine, and have permission to use the local history museum, and the Museum of Witchcraft in Boscastle, England, to perform some further research! I can't wait!

Other than that, the only other bit of information I have to add is this: I'm a Consecrated Priest of the Irish Earth-Goddess, The Morrighan (don't take my word for it, look it up if you don't believe me-- please; often people don't, despite the current thinking that's so often dismissed as "inconsequential"!). And, unlike some other posers that are skulking about the cyberspace, She chose me to serve Her, rather than so many Buffy Bunnies (and Fluff Bunnies) invoking Her to their pedantic ends, or what they think She is based upon specious, "fixed," late 19th. century pseudo-scholarship.

But, I really am a nice guy, honest! I just tend to get upset by all of the posers that plague modern Pagan Witchcraft these days. Especially the anti-Fluffy Fundamentalists (despite the fact that I'm as anti-Fluffy as all get-out, but not to such an extreme!) which are just as bad as the Fluffy Bunnies in many respects (they like to tell everyone how wrong they are, or claim one's research is crap, despite the shifting winds of academia or methodology), or enact out-and-out character assassination for no other reeason than their own selfish Egos. Another personal quibble I only very generally admit to having is that such individuals refuse to, for example, question what they are "taught," taking it for granted as some "holy writ"! "Initiation" is a prime example of this: Far too many so-called "Pagans" (and un-Initiated, too boot!) are under the impression that it denotes a membership into a secret club, to learn said "secrets". In other words, this is the ONLY acceptible definition of "Initiation". Well, this is only an erroniously simplistic definition as far as I'm concerned. And, for this reason, I have differentiated what I term "Ritual Initiation" from "Authentic Initiation"-- an "Authentic Initiation" (which may include "Spontanious Initiation") being that which cannot be bestowed upon by anyone else, but can only, ultimately, come from within; The Charge of the Goddess even speaks of this! In fact, the author of The Charge Of The Goddess, Doreen Valiente, also questioned the Initiatory-mandate that "only a Witch can make a Witch"!-- she's my hero (another hero of mine is UCLA Archaeologist, Marija Gimbutas, because she dared to interprate)! I also recommend Mircea Eliade's Shamanism: Archaic Techniques In Ecstacy for an examination of a shamanistic-Initiation cycle.

I really have to grind my teeth when the "Occult Police" take to throwing their weight around! So, enough of my ranting...I'm sure you're sick of it by now!

Albeit I do not consider myself "Wiccan"-- despite the fact that this was the method through which I came to The Craft-- structurally-speaking (it even applies to the 8 Sabbats that I personally celebrate-- hey, I'd be mad to turn down a chance to party! LOL) I follow "Wiccan" proceedures to an extent, while following at the heart of my practice what may best be described as Gaelic Traditionalism (i.e., Reconstructionism). So, I guess one could define me as a cross between a Witch-Priest and a Gaelic Traditionalist/Reconstructionist!

Thanks for letting me ramble, a bit!

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

Prof. Ronald Hutton...

MacMorrighan — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:44:13 GMT

Hey guys, I was just wondering if anyone, here, has had any problems with the polemical literature put out by Prof. Ronald Hutton? I must admit that the more I learn, the less seriously I am able to take British academia! Yet, British scholars severely come across as though they look down on other geographical branches of academia save theor own-- as though it's seriously them against he world! And, yes, I know that sounds extreme, but I tend to see such an attitude far too often to believe much ese.

Someone asked me, recently, why I qualified my endorsement of Ronald Hutton so severely. I should have been mre specific than what I was. So, I would like to devote this thread to that. ]:) What follows is merely the examples that I could think of, and tack down in his books, within the past few days. Also, I would like to refer the reader to these reviews by Max Dashu and Asphodel P. Long of his The [i]Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles[/i]; apparently, after Long's review was published, Ronald wrote the publication a letter informing them (according to the Ed.) that he didn't know enough about the topic before writing about it: www.suppressedhistories.net/arti....html and www.asphodel-long.com/html/pa...ons.html (Personally, I can't wait until Max's several volume series on "The Secret History of the Witches" is published!) www.suppressedhistories.net/secr...html)

Unfortunately, one problem right off the bat is how Hutton is, often, thoughtlessly dismissive of other scholars that have an opposing view point, as though they're entirely [b]inconsequential[/b]. As a result, Hutton's work is sorely in need of an objective stance; he needs to "balance the equasion", if you will... Indeed, he's far too keen on ONLY recommended and advancing those scholars that AGREE with him. It's a shame, however, that many rather gullible Pagans simply wave this through, under the banner of so-called "academic rigour"!!! (Honestly, I'm just a li'l offended by that!) Furthermore, it has come to my attention that Hutton really isn't in the habit of writing a histiography-- other-wise they'd surely be FAR more balanced and objective!-- but works of [i]polemic[/i]! Here is a list, for ease-of-reference, of many quite egregious problems I have found with his writings:

[b]1.)[/b] Ronald Hutton ([i]The Stations of the Sun[/i]), in his minimalist zeal, claims that any such notion positing divination within the realms of [i]Samhain[/i] were based upon "the flimsy nature" of the evidence gathered by two outstanding British scholars (John Rhys and Keating); evidence which is now believed to be inconsequential in Hutton's opinion. Rather, Hutton merely thinks that these two academics were in error when gathering the local folk-traditions throughout the British Aisles (an accusation he believes should have been apparent to them from the beginning) because the existence of purification rituals and divination "could be explained either by a connection to the most eerie of Christian feasts (All Saints) or by the fact that they ushered in the most dreaded of all the seasons." Unfortunately, he offers no documented evidence to support his thesis—- just an opinion portrayed as though it were empirical fact. (Where's the evidence, Ron!?!?!) For example, nowhere in this tome does he expressly find any documentation that the Christian feast of All Saints was in any way perceived of as "eerie"—- all we have is his lauded opinion. Nor does Prof. Hutton supply any documentation that portrays the genesis of British divination as one that results from this most "dreaded of all seasons" [Hutton 1996: 363]! Had he bothered to do so, I would have found that to be a far more convincing argument. Hutton's "opinion", here, is clearly unsubstantiated! Why he's putting it forth as fact is anyone guess. Actually, in retrospect, it looks like he's simply selling out, making a name for himself, by brown-nosing the skeptical rationalists! ("Skeptical rationalists" can be defined as those that believe if a thesis can be questions, regardless of how feeble their questioning, that there is, hence, the correct thesis by default!) Be that as it may, Hutton apparently believes, privately, that a lack of evidence does not necessarily equate to evidence of non-existance. Gee, you wouldn't know it from his texts! But, I digress... What Hutton also failed to take into account is the endemic folkloric evidence of this divination. Often times it involves the use of hazelnuts, and often for the purpose of love divination, rather than survival, as Hutton might paint it. Hazelnuts were sacred to the paleo-pagan Celts and are numerously found in medieval Irish mythological tracts. Furthermore, he seems to have an open disdane for other theories of any kind, yet...he's more than happy (and ready) to supplant his own! Hypocritic, [i]n'est pas[/i]?

[b]2.)[/b] What bothers me is how Hutton has, rather, engendered a sort of overt form of blind skepticism in modern Pagans where no proof is proof enough to them! Now, skepticism is a good thing! However, I don't believe that one should be blindly skeptical. Hutton exemplifies this beautifully when discussing Margaret Murray, as I understand it... He basis the demollishion of her as a respectible authority on two primary scholars, Norman Cohn and Kieth Thomas. Well, Cohn is the most problematic of the bunch! Cohn often uses one's age as ammunition to dismiss and critique an author or idea-- and he does likewise to Murray! He says of her, "by the time she turned her attention to these matters she was nearly sixty." This is discriminatory, and Hutton should have seen this going on in Cohn's book [i]Europe's Inner Deamons[/i]-- there's really no excuse in that he ignored it! (Hutton should be ashamed of indirectly endorsing this! In fact, if I recall, back in 1999 in a review of "A Coven Of Scholars" that he wrtote, he actually seems to endorse it) Then Cohn grossly misrepresents Murray and hence asssassinates her character for generations to come! Cohn apparently accused her of ommitting from the testimony of alledged "witches" anything that would have discredited her-- [i]this[/i] is a mendacious lie on Cohn's part. Cohn also accuses her of failing to discuss the problematic nature of certain evidence, which is apparently not the case, for Murray [i]does[/i] discuss the problematic nature of this "evidence"! Furthermore, if one goes back to compare and contrast what Cohn was saying of Murray with what Murray actually wrote, you would be stupified! In fact, she had apparently not ommitted these passages, but had considered them in detail! Indeed, if this is so, it would be practically scandelous that Hutton would be entirely unaware of this, or havng never checked, and just rather blindly relying upon the "say-so" of another author. (Heck, it's academic suicide, IMO) Now, this is not to say that Murray does not need extensive up-dating; she wrote in the 1930s, after all! But, the scholars that have alledgedly discredited her need to seriously rethink their position. Moreover, during the last week of October I decided to read a little more of my copy of Ginzburg's [i]The Night Battles[/i] and read something equally astonishing! According to Prof. Ginzburg, the late Prof. Cohn pretty much pulled the same stunt with Ginzburg's own work! Ginzburg says, "Equally unjustified on the other hand, in my opinion, is the assurance with which [Norman] Cohn, in a polemic with [J.B.] Russell (and also because of a misrepresentation of my book) concluded that, 'the experiences of the benandanti...were all trance experiences.'" [pp. xiv]. However, the late Prof. Cohn would have dismissed this all as illusory and, hence, inconsequential without a second thought! (Hutton himself similarly mischaracterizes Ginzburg's book, as though if he repeats something often enough it'll become fact!) I must admit that I find this pattern deeply troubling. After all, Hutton's certainly dismissed scholars with whom he fundamentally disagreed for pulling the same crap as Normal Cohn did. I also find it hard to believe that Hutton could have, in good consciousness, been ignorant of theses scholastic failings... That is an unfortunate mistake... Hutton seriously needs to rescind, or at the VERY least, qualify his endorsement of Norman Cohn as a scholar! However, he blatantly refuses to do this, even as early as a 2003 issue of [i]The Cauldron[/i], a British Pagan Journal, despite this evidence. It simply makes Hutton look biased, I'm afraid, and a rather poor scholar, to boot. Honestly, as will be seen again, and again, I have noticed a marked sanctamonious attitude in Hutton's writings-- the rules he applies to others, he does not often apply to himself.

Heck, Coh lists some very hard to believe reasons for dismissing some entirely uncoerced witchcraft trials! One man was cassually questioned by the authorities, for being what was known as a "Free Spirit", because they were known to practice both male and female homosexuality as they saw the refusal of such desires to be the only "sin". Well, along came Norman Cohn that completely, without thought, dismissed this account, because the individual was apparently, to him (bearing in mind the man's been dead for centuries, and Cohn has no degree in Psychology!), a "paranoid megalomaniac", "schizophrenic", or "nihilistic"!

No scholars seemed to question Cohn's thinking in any way? They seem awefully far-fetched "excuses" for dismissing evidence, to me! After all, not even a detective or attorney would buy such blanket statements imposed upon one that's been dead for 100s of years! I mean c'mon, who's he trying to bull shit!!! In fact, another historian simply dismisses this Medieval individual as "psychopathic"! I, for one, have never seen such abhorrant methodology in all my life, especially when advanced as so-called "academia"!

Refuting other textual documentation that would have refuted Cohn's main thesis (that there were no witches, nor any sense of paleo-pagan "survival") Cohn accuses a few women that freely admitted to attending a sabbat and of night travel of being sinile, when he says of them that this is "something that has hitherto happened in the minds of silly old women." This is not only ageist (his distinctive trade mark), but sexist!

Sadly, Cohn's lies are still repeated by him and other British scholars as though they are empirical facts!

[b]3.)[/b] [i]The Stations of the Sun[/i]: In a footnote for Chapter 40, Hutton claims empirically of Celticist Dr. John Carey, that he has been yielding astonishing results about paleo-pagan Samhain beliefs and practices from a paper he delivered at The Institute of Historical Research, as well as in an issue of the academic Journal [i]Eriu[/i] which he was not able to acquire. Despite Hutton's claim, according to a friend of mine-- a Pagan that is in the process of attaining his PhD. in Celtic Studies, who has as his academic advisor, Prof. Carey-- not only did the article at hand not deal with Samhain in any significant way, but Carey has never set foot onto "that learned Institution" [ie, The Institute of Historical Research]! (Carey's still curious about why Hutton made this claim.)

[b]4.)[/b] In [i]Pagan Religions[/i], Ronald says, [i]"...Odin sacrifices himself to himself, and so gains arcane wisdon. It is one of the most haunting passages in Norse literature, in which readers can at least feel close at least to the inner world of norther European paganism. Or can they? Can it be that the entire episode is the Crucifixion translated into Scandinavian myth? Christ and Odin are both hanged upon a tree (the latter being the common medieval term for a scaffold, applied very often to the cross). Both are pierced by spears, thirst, cry out and are resurrected with infinately greater glory (Odin after nine days, Christ after three). All this is surely too much to be coincidental, and although present-day scholars are divided over whether it is a Chrstian poem or not, it seems beyond question that its form was heavily influenced by Christianity. So, after all, it seems to tell us little about the nature of the older religions of Scandinavia"[/i] [pp. 296-7; 1991]. However, rather hypocritically, if you ask me, Hutton bases his conclusions [i]only[/i] on the similarities, rather than acknowledging their [i]fundamental[/i] differences-- an offense he levied upon such "poor" scholars as Frazer, for example! After all, had any other researcher claimed that the similarities between Osiris, Adonis, Dummuzi, etc. were the most likely authentic anecedants to the Christ myth (because they were obviously "too much to be coincidental") you can be sure that he would have stomped them into the ground with scorn! Indeed, Hutton almost seems too eager to casually default to a Christian explaination-- and it does often appear that he has shifted the burdon of proof. It is also interesting to note that the Catholic Church has, astonishingly, made many Encyclopedia publishers alter texts that do not portray them in anything but a positive light! But, I digress... Of course, at first glance, it sounds amazingly convincing, for those that don't know much about [i]shamanism[/i], or even Indo-European studies, etc.! However, I have to wonder if, at this point, Hutton was familiar (as in, having absorbed) the works of Mircea Eliade (particularly his master-work, [i]Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstacy[/i]-- a book he later treats as flawed and inconsequential in future writings)? So many contemporary-early, as well as modern (recent) scholars seem to go on about Heathenism being drenched in a various form of shamanism-- yet, this is all but denied in Hutton's book dealing with the subject. One wonders why this corpus of academia is being ignored? To briefly excerpt Davidson [[i]Gods & Myths of the Viking Age[/i]]: [i]"It was thought at one time that this image of the suffering god hanging from the tree must have been derived from the Christian Crucifixion. But, despite certain resemblences, it would seem that here we have something whose roots go deep into heathen thought, and which is no late copy, conscious or unconscious, of the central mytery of the Christian faith. By hanging on a tree, Odin is not sharing in the suffering of the world or saving men from death, but he is there to win the secrets of the runes..."[/i] [pp. 144; 1964]. She also goes on to relate that a variety of shamans are "made" by climbing the World Tree (or [i]axis muni[/i]), which is a strong "northern" motif. While, other shamanic parallels are also noted: Like the shamans of the Mongols, both they and Odin tethered their respective horses to their percieved "World Trees". This scene is also clearly one in which Odinn is being "sacrificed" in the manner pre-dating the Viking age. For example-- this pre-viking practice entailed that prisoners/sacrifices be hung onto trees which was continued clear up until the 10th. century at Uppsala. I also believe that there may be an echo between Frejya teaching Him Her especial Magick, and the Yakut "Bird Mother of Prey" who carries off the prospective shaman to learn his abilities to "shamanize". Indeed, if we accept that this is actually an [i]axis mundi[/i] (as Hutton seems hesitant to do, well...actually refusing to acknowledge), than we can clearly see the death and rebirth theme embodied in the psychological transformation of "Authentic"/"Spontanious Initiation"! Davidson also states that Odinn is depicted hanging from a tree in an early Swedish rock art-- though, of what date, I have no idea. Would it be fascinating to find this out? Abso-freakin'-lutely! This is one fascinating claim that I would, personally, love to research! But, unfortunately, in this particular text, Davidson did not relate any information about this stone with which one may use to find further information concerning it. Too bad... But, to back-track slightly, because Odinn is undergoing this horrific experience, I would definately be willing to assert that it is an Initiation experience, due to the fact that He is acquiring a special form of knowledge embodied in a very masculine form of old Norse Magick, known as [i]galdr[/i], which is respectively idetified with the casting of runes. The shamanistic extent by which Odinn is certainly identified is noted in a great many prose tales in which the God appears. Another VERY important question that Hutton should address-- otherwise, I think he's making some rather grand methodological leaps!-- is if this medieval term for a cross/scaffold is found in Germany/Scandinavia; or if it's English/British (of which he is, generally, a scholar)? Ater all, if it doesn't appear in Germany or Scandinavia, than Hutton's reductionist theory-- a school of thought that is now rather untenible-- would be impossible to accept! something else leaps to mind that Hutton also seems to have glossed over: the Christ was NOT "hanged" on a tree; he was nailed to a cross and crucified! Now, Odinn, however, he WAS literalled "hanged" from a tree. They apparently, so far as I will advance, two completely differenbt modes of dying/death! And, still, I remain skeptical of Hutton's beliefs concerning the World Tree upon which Odinn is hung as being code-word for the cross, unless he could demonstrate that it was similarly known by such language in Germany/Scandinavia when, and especially WHERE, this particular poem was WRITTEN. Now, to my knowledge, he didn't do this-- we're merely supposed to accept him at his word. My own opinions to the side, according to a friend of mine with Asatruar connections, Hutton is apparently 150 years behind the times. [i]"The idea that the Norse myths were substantially affected by either Christianity or Classical Learning was argued by Sophius Bugge. In a series of famous debates with Viktor Rydberg, Bugge's position was defeated, and Rydberg was considered to have fairly won the debates. Rydberg was able to demonstrate the strong Indo-European base to the Germanic myths"[/i] [pers. comm.]

[b]5.)[/b] Hutton says, again, in [i]Pagan Religions[/i]: [i]"None of these images ['Green Man' carvings] could have been a beloved pagan deity, placed in churches by popular demand. The context of this idea was destroyed with the collapse of the Murray thesis, but like that thesis it could hardly have been argued at all by anybody with a real knowledge of the Middle Ages. No churchmen across the entire span of the period described them as such. St. Bernard, in a passage most accessibly printed by Sheridan and Ross, did inveigh against the burgeoning fashion for Romanesque at the beginning of the twelfth century; but his invective does not in fact prove the point suggested by these authors, for he condemned the images as grotesque, silly and expensive, not as pagan. There is abundant evidence, mostly from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, for the sort of people who paid the masons and comissioned the carvings. Occassionally the whole parish did so, but much more often those responsible were churchmen (above all bishops and abbots), landowners and wealthy merchants. The central point in The Witch Cult in Western Europe was that ordinary people remained adherants to the 'Old Religion' while the ruling class was Christian. And it was that class that determined how churches were decorated. The Wild Man, Sheela-na-Gig and Green Man were all products of that tremendous upswelling of of medieval culture which has been called the Twelfth-Century Renaissance. And like the more famous later Renaissance it ws a Christian movement, even though it drew upon ancient ideas and images"[/i] [pp. 316]. However, Medievalist Samantha Riches, in her monograph [i]St. George[/i] [Sutton, 2000] argues the following point: [i]"The haunting image of the 'Green Man'-- the foliate face, redolent of the natural world, which sits so uneasily in Christian churches-- has been identified as a pre-Christian form of St. George. It acts as a reminder of his role as an icon of natural fertility; in fact, 'Green George' is a name sometimes given to this image, which may act as a symbol of the return of spring after the temporary triumph of winter. An interesting echo of this aspect of St, George is found in an Islamic analogue known as 'Al khidr', 'Al Khadir', 'El Khudr', 'Khizr' or 'Jiryis Baqiya'. This figure is particularly associated with the area around Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. He is also recognized by Jews under the name 'Eliyahu ha Navi', who is considered to be a special guardian of Israel, and by local Christians as 'Mar Jiryis'; much of the rebuilt church over the shrine at Lydda was converted to a mosque, and it seems that the tomb was positioned squarely between the two sections of the building, and was thus available to both Christian and Moslem devotees. The various names applied to this holy character equate to terms such as 'Living One', 'the Green One' and 'the Ever Green One'; he is thought to derives from the Greek sea god Glaucos, whose name means 'the Blue One' or 'the Green One', a fisherman who achieved immortality, and hence the status of a god, after eating a seashore herb that he had noticed restored his fish to life. Utnapishtim, a charachter in the Gilgimesh epic, attained immortality in a remarkibly similar way, and this parallel may indicate another influence.

"Al Khidr (and his alternative appelations) is reputed to have found the Fountain of Youth, or the Well of Life, which is said to be located near the confluence of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Drinking from the fountain confers immortality, and it is claimed that Al Khidr has been repeatedly killed and resurrected; one story involves the martyrdom at the behest of a pagan king. Some traditions state that Al Khidr bathed three times in the Well of Life: in consequence, his skin and all his apparel turned entirely green, and he leaves green foot prints wherever he goes. [...]"[/i] [pp. 33] Not only would it appear that we have an image of a paleo-pagan Deity from Indo-European consequence, but...Hutton appears to be angaging in [b]intimidation tactics[/b]. According to another friend of mine, scholars all over the place-- though, seemingly more so in the US and UK-- practice intimidating other academics from voincing a difference in scholastic opinion usually that of the minority). Stating that "no one with a real knowledge of the Medieval period" would say such-and-such is clearly intimidating! Indeed, this is often why scholars cannot follow protocol and admit that there [i]are[/i] reputible views that differ from their own, because there is a large tactic of suppression taking place.

[b]6.)[/b] In [i]Triumph of the Moon[/i] I found this interesting tidbit, that never seemed to add-up. Basically, Hutton seems to be claiming that there's [b]no evidence[/b] for the iconography of The Devil having stemmed from paleo-pagan images from other Deities: [i]"The half-animal nature of the horned god, after all, gave him a much more obvious parallel in Christian mythology than the figure of Jesus, and one absolutely opposed. There is here, indeed, a fascinating possibility which must be left open, because at present we appear to lack a propper study of images of the Devil in modern culture, to complement a large amount of first-rate scholarship upon those in ancient and medieval times. Between 1100 and 1700, both artistic representations and confessions extracted from alleged witches certainly portray Satan at times as half-goat, and often with horns. More often, however, the horns are those of a bull, and his most common characteristics are clawed feet, long ears, and wings (or a bat or a dragon). He is also featured combined with a wide range of other animals, dogs and snakes being the most common, or a a black, or black-clothed, man. It does seem as if the standard modern conception of the Devil as a being with cloven hooves, goat's horns and pointed beard is a ninteenth-century creation, representing a growing Christian reaction towards the importance of Pan as an alternative focus for the literary imagination."[/i] [pp. 46]. Yet, in J.B. Russell's 1977 monograph, [i]The Devil[/i] (a scholar with whom Hutton is [i]certainly[/i] familiar), we find the following statement in numerous transmutations: [i]"The goat form of the Devil derives primarily from the image of Pan. From such theriomorphic ancestors the Devil inherited his claws, cloven hooves, hairiness, huge phallus, wings, horns, and tail"[/i] [pp. 254]. Hence, it seems to me that Huttons seems to be severely down-playing this "transferrence", if you will.

[b]7.)[/b] Hutton, unfortunatelty, is rather thoughtlessly dismissive of Hungarian Prof., Eva Pocs. In her lit.-- and the majority view amongst European scholars-- (from reading Hutton, however, it almost seems like it the British scholars against the world!), she has found a distinct shamanistic antacedent in Medieval witchcraft belief. She investigated over 2000 records and documents, trials and testimonoes from the time (the largest in recent history) to come to this conclusion! In fact, the vast majority of these documents would not be available to the Enghlish-reader were it not for Prof. Pocs. In a PROPER historiography, Hutton should have at LEAST made mention that most scholars in Europe believe this, and [i]what[/i] scholars are spear-heading this popular European thesis. However, in responce to it, Hutton only engages in pure pedantry in that 2003 ed. of The Cauldron. In fact, it takes him so lonmg to respond to the mention of Pocs that one wonder's if he'd even read her lit. or merely taken the say-so of another college. Rather, Hutton entirely dismisses Pocs. as inconsequential because, "like most British scholars" he believes she uses the work "shamanistic" incorrectly-- he believes it can only apply to the tribal spiritual practices of the Arctic norht, never mind that her use of the term is only a freaking similie rather than a blatant metaphore of any kind! Am I the only one that finds this shocking? Hutton seems, at least to me, to be scraping for any reason to reject a scholar of thesis! I, personally, find that highly insulting to my intelligence.

[b]8.)[/b] And, finally, a couple other points that really seemed to come to the surface this week, because they bothered me so desperately (I happened to by a new book last weekend by Peter Beresford Ellis that supplied a lot of tested-and-true evidence to the contrary; it's what brought this particular facet to mind, I believe): [i]"...it may be seen already that there is a strong possibility that the whole concept of the Tuatha de Danaan was invented by storytellers, perhaps working in the early Christian era and influenced by the Graeco-Roman myths.... Goddesses rarely feature in the Irish literature as maternal or nurturing, being more often aggressive and vorascious in their sexuality and bloodlust. Whether they represented role models for self-assertive Celtic women, or the fantasies of pagan Celtic male warriors, or the nightmares of the Christian monks who wrote the stories, is an open questiion"[/i] [pp.152]. While on page 296 Hutton further claims, [i]"It is very likely that when writing of the Tuatha de Danaan, the Irish were not recording something in which their ancestors believed but fitting old deities into a structure inspired by the Greek pantheon."[/i] He even makes the following claim back on page 152, [i]"...there is no trace in the Irish or Welsh literature of any deity associated with the sun (or moon)."[/i] Well, what pf [i]Graine[/i](sp?), whose name means "Sun"? Etymologically, The Daghdha even seems certainly associated with the Sun, when many of his epithets are taken into account, as well, according to Dr. Daithi O hOgain. So, I must wonder what he is denoting as "evidence", and what has so convinced him? Hutton certainly doesn't say, and I believe he should have... [i]I[/i] certainly would be fascinated in the reasons! But, I digress... Early Hutton seems to be claiming, in essence, is that what insular narrative literature we have on record [eg, [i]The Tain[/i]] is purely a case of the mediaval Irish monks re-telling Greek myths! Whereas, Ellis states that several scholars are firm in their acknowledgement that insular narrative literature contains certain direct parallels to Indic/Hindu religion, culture and mythology...not just through linguistics. Now, Ellis has said something similar to this before, such as in his book [i]The Druids[/i], but it was confined seemingly to Celtic culture and linguistics. Here, he is far more forceful and applies it, also, to mythology, etc.! According to Ellis [[i]The World of the Ancient Celts[/i]], Celticist Myles Dillon made this statement around 1977; there are scholars that have found similar seemingly-direct parallels through inscriptions, that only seem to reflect Hindu mythological themes, etc. Also, concerning the sexuality of the Celtic Goddesses, he doesn't seem very well versed in the Celtic Goddess as Sovereign-Goddess and Land-Goddess, which can explain such occurances, rather than male warrior fantasies, or Christian nightmares! In fact, amongs Celticists, this theory is as old as about the middle of the 20th century. *sigh*

But, what I would REALLY like to know is why scholars have failed to scrutenize Hutton, as though they're afraid of doing so, for fear of tarnishing their "reputations"! Where is the "check-and-balance" system?

Okay, rant mode off... ;o)

Take Care,
Wade

P.S.--Although, I must admit, I take particular offense when some Pagans say, rather belligerantly, some variation of the following, "You're just pissed because Prof. Hutton's not telling you what you WANT to hear!" And, despite the education others might have put into any given topic, others are quick to point out any reason they can think of to discredit other writers that might disagree with Hutton. One Pagan took offense to Harvard educated independant scholar Max Dashu, for no other reason than that she is a feminist, and completely disregarded anything she might have to say, despite the evidence she was supplying.

So, basically, if ya' REALLY wanna' offend me, just call me a "history revisionist"! Oy vey! ;o) A scant few have sadly done so, usually in the heat of the moment, and I immediately see RED! I, personally, take great offense to it, as I respect the field of history greatly! Rather, such glib dismissals usually serve as an intimidation tactic meant to silence those that disagree. *sigh*

In all honestly, I bring up such personal problems regarding the field of History because I believe it is capable of so much more! I wouldn't state such if I didn't care, after all. Honestly, I guess you could say that I've been deeply disillusioned as a result. After all, I thought we were supposed to trust scholars and accept them at their word-- but, I found that not to be the case. I was shocked, and a little offended (because I don't appreciate stuff that insults my intelligence as such), when I so often see unsubstantiated claims put forth as fact, or opinions that are, also put forth as empirical fact.

Just thought I'd clear up any questions others might have concerning my motives-- I bring this up only becauise I care so deeply, and I believe that Hutton is capable of so much better!

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

new Druid tribe

Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:35:30 GMT

http://tribes.tribe.net/druidwomb

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

(songspell)

Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:42:17 GMT

Cerridwen's Kiss

I was a purple flash of lightening.
I was a indigo raindrop on a flower petal.
I was a blue note within a Bard's song.
I was a green blade of grass on a sacred hilltop.
I was a yellow salamander in the mire.
I was an orange cat hunting prey.
I was a red-clothed woman heavy with child.
One day I will reach godhood.
And when my deity passes,
As I fade through the veils of Summerland,
I will be an Oak again...

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

An Earth-Shattering Book!

MacMorrighan — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:22:06 GMT

Hey, I just got three ***FASCINATING*** books yesterday!!! One is about Neolithic North America, though it deals more with material cultural remains rather than religion of rites and gods/goddesses, etc. It's called, "Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent" Fourth Edition. By, Brian Fagan. The other far more interesting tomes are:

Before Scotland: The Story of Scotland Before History -- Alistair Moffat Deals with pre-historic Scotland and the CFelts in general; though focussing on Scotland, primarily. Yet, religion takes a back-seat, again.

This is the book which is truly (I do NOT say this lightly!) earth-shattering to the academic community!!! Inside the Neolithic Mind -- David Lewis-Williams and David Pearce. The sequal to The Mind in the Cave-- I haven't read this prior text, yet; it will have to wait until I get some money! Anyway, according to the authors, we are able to, with relative certainty, interprate the meanings for many of the carvings in Neolithic caves and upon burial mounds, etc. They seem to be pictographs based upon what one would have experienced in a hallucinogenic trance/state; these seem to be common with all people on earth, much like an "archetype" if you will. Earlier academics, unfortunately, much like Hutton [Ronald] and his ilk (and probably still do) would claim firmly--stating there are no answers possible to their accusations-- that this is either "pseudo-science" (a term of insult used even by modern Pagans to write off research they happen not to agree with), and that any conclusions about what the Neolithic people meant when they carved these symbols, for example, eludes us-- that it MUST elude us permanently, until we have the impossible ability to contact the creators directly and ask them! They seem to scorn at those whom interprate any evidence-- however, ironically, they seem to do a lot of interprating themselves (particularly Hutton)! Basically, they say, "We can't know with ANY degre of certainty, so why bother!" In other words, we should leave it a mystery becase we "cannot know" and, thus, should not adance any theories or hypotheses, which would be a severe lapse in a sort of meathodology, it would seem. Indeed, it seemed to-- for a very long time-- be a a field of study that is no loger (and is not) respectible. And, for these reasons I call this book EARTH-SHATTERING!!!

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

Commercial Organic Sloe Gin Suppliers...

MacMorrighan — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:34:08 GMT

Hey Guys, here's a really interesting question for y'all. Being that the holy Blackthorne [Prunus spinosa] is not native to the US (indeed, there are restrictions against propogating it, I understand), I have been looking for some commercial U.S. suppliers of Sloe Gin which is organic (i.e., the use actual Sloe Berries in the distillation/steeping process). The only Sloe Gin I am familiar with is Arrow brand, and i suspect it, as well as most American Sloe Gins are made using artificial flavours and colourings. So...being unable to make my own (because of no access to fresh Sloe Berries) I am trying to find a commercial supplier of organic Sloe Gin that, at least, does business with some business or Co. in the US, so that I could more easily purchase the stuff.

Anyone know of any?

Oh, and...ditto with Mead, by the way! ;o)

Take Care,
Wade MacMorrighan

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 0 replies

The Morrighan

MacMorrighan — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:37:27 GMT

MY Patron Goddess is the Morrighan (and before anyone asks, She chose me, rather than me choosing Her just because "she's kewl" or some other rubbish). However, I have to ask something that's been weighing heavy on my heart, lately.

Why do so many modern Pagans (generally the Anti-Fluffy Fundies that seem terrified of being thought "Fluffy" themselves) so hessitent to view Her as anything other than a so-called "War-Goddess" (which is debatible) or a Goddess of mass slaughter, despite evidence to the contrary and the academic concensus to such an effect.

Furthermore, they seem to consider it wholey insulting that anyone would term Her either an Earth-Goddess, or a Tutelary-Goddess, regardless of the sweeping winds of change in the academic community! Many scholars now call Her a "Land Goddess," or a genius loci; while some Pagans rather belligerently assert that there's no evidence for this (using only limited myths that cannot wholey be relied uponb as an objective window into the Irish Iron Age).

Some scholars (one Maire Herbert) has even questioned the "war-goddess" classification, supurbly! Yet, according to these Pagans mentione earlier, they disagree with any scholars that take up such a stance. To them, "relying on such gad scholars only makes you look bad." *rolls his eyes* This only shows me that they are unaware of any such scholars that would disagree withy their dogmatic conclusions. Furthermore, they also claim that if one questions the myths we have of her as ccurate, than, we either have to use them all, or never use them once, ina discussion of her. And, again, it passes right over their heads that this would be anb incorrct simplification of the matter at hand.

Why has she become a Goddess that incites such stern Witch-Wars? Why are they so seemingly afraind to think of Her any other way? Despite the FLuffy behaviour they espy in others, they certainly seem to have it in spades!

I have even seen others that claim to worship Her mock others that worship Her, and evenb threatening to curse them in the Name oif the Goddess (because "she would find it amusing" or some such b.s.)!!!

Okay, rant-button off! ;o)

Take care,
Wade MacMorrighn

posted in Celtic Reconstructionist/Restorationist - 1 reply