Okay, I must admit, I am jaded. But, more recently, I read something that absolutely offended my good sense of intelligence. I was reading an academic article, in a collection of articles themed around witchcraft [see. V. Newall's (ed.) The Witch Figure], called "Animal Witchcraft in Japan" by Dr. Carmen Blacker, Lecturer in Japanese Studies at Cambridge University. Now, it wasn't what Dr. Blacker was writing that offended me! Rather, it was what dawned on me that was an instance of out-and-out hypocrosy, par excellence. She rendered a remarkible case for the instance of what I am terming "Familiars" within Japanese "witchcraft" throughout local villages. Now, these are identical in nearly *every* exacting way with the exact same leitmotivs found in parts of Europe (such as France), but especially throughout England! Within Japan these Familiars were often envisaged as snakes, frogs, or, more commonly, the fox! They were fed, usually kept in a pot in the kitchen, do the witch's bidding (sometimes tormenting a respectve victum), and are believed to be passed down through families. Moreover, Dr. Blacker makes an astonishingly sound argument tracing the antecedants of Familiar-beliefs throughout Japan back to before 1500 BCE in the I Ching and a form of Magick known as "ku". And, as a result, she can come to NO oher conclusion than to strictly define this feature as stemming from paganism, and even totemism!!!

But, WAIT! When we see these EXACT SAME motivs ocuring throughout portions of Europe, and especially Britain (where the so-called "Great Hunts" never reached the theocratic fever and apogee that it did on Continental Europe), American and British scholars are nearly unequivocally unanimous when they press their collective noses to the ground and shout, empirically, that these exact SAME appearances somehow CAN'T be paganism (period). [WTF?] This is, whether or not one chooses to admit it, a case of "special pleading", par excellence!

In fact, what many non-PhD. Pagans find so astonishing (when it is finally brought to their attention, 'cause, it's usually withheld from them in academia's zealous denials or rejections which simply is NOT the job of the Historian-- their job is to present ALL of the available data and then, and ONLY then, discussing it or making some judgement, rather than rejecting theories that they cannot be seen to agree with thereby giving a demonstrably FALSE impression to their readers by withholding differing schools of thought-- that's SPECIOUS reasoning on their part, period!), but I've digressed... Pagans usually find it astonishing, and are sometimes made jaded as a result, when it is brought to their attention that the vast MAJORITY of scholars throughout continental Europe have reached a far differing conclusion than those from America and Britain (save for one Emma WIlby, though, I hear that more less extremist British and American researchers are working on unpublished texts that come to the same conclusions, because the funding for such thesese finally seems to make it viable and tenable!); they contend that, yes, it IS paganism-- a survival of such! Furthermore, they state that witchcraft-beliefs are inseperable from local accounts of shamanism or shamanistic beliefs.

Why should British and American scholars be so glib and specious in this regard? Could it be? Oh....I dunno'.... SAY'TAN! LOL... Okay, sorry for my bad Church Lady joke. But, seriously, it almost certainly stems from the alleged "debunking" of Margaret Murray and the fear of supporting anything that may be seen as supporting her thesis, regardless of the variant! (Honestly, such extremism has to be the biggest steaming pile that I have EVER heard! That's like saying that someone told you water is bad; and from then on you refuse to have anything to do with anything containing H2O. It's LUDICROUS!). So, is this rejection of Murray a deserved one? Most British and American scholars seem to have convinced themselves that it is. But, is it, REALLY? An actually OBJECTIVE analysis of he evidence in the matter will PROVE that its not.

Why? Well, I'm glad you asked... It seems like scholars generally use, as their PRINCIPLE source, uncritically, the mendacious tome written by the late Prof. Norman Cohn: "Europe's Inner Demons". He alleges that Murray ommitted anything fanciful from her books that would have discredited her thesis (period)...aside from some agist tactics for dismissing her, as well. Well, if one actually reads Murray they will find that those passages which Cohn claims she ommitted are clearly in her texts and that she considered them in great detail! Moreover, Cohn came up with some rather specious reasons for dismissing perfectly acceptible evidence! Cohm has, so far as I am concerned, been debunked, and he must be acknowledged as a POOR source on which to rely. But, of course, there are other in-depth reasons for doing so which I haven't space for, now (a Gardnerian HP wrote an academic essay called "Collars & Scholars" where he gave pleanty of detail with which to do so!).

Gee, it seems like scholars are relying on Cohn to the extent that they now think it absolves them from the task of having to, oh I dunno'' actually *read* what Murray had written! Sounds like sloppy scholarship to me. *sigh* Hell, that aside, it seems like modern scholars haven't even bothered thinking about how he had actually formed his questions that lead his thesis, which is absolutely problematic.

Personally, I think it's high time that American and British scholars grew up! *EG* Hey, someone had to say it sooner or later for us jaded and cynical researchers! heh heh heh... So, it is with this post that I would like to see American and British scholars openly calling ZCohn on his crap! There's NO sensible reason NOT to-- in fact, History DEMANDS it of them! Okay, Wade, rant-mode OFF! :o)

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