I don't know any reliable specifics about the Norns or the Wyrdd sisters, etc. But the broader issue is that of syncretism as a "valid" part of ancient, classical and late-antique Paganism. If some "Norse clerics" "borrowed" some ideas, or even some Deities, from their Hellenistic neighbors, this in no way diminishes the importance of any practices that resulted from such mixing.

The thing to focus on is this: the idea of dismissing all syncretic and/or eclectic mixtures is based on (drum roll please) the noxious theory of "racial purity". There was NEVER a time in the human past when racially pure groups of people practiced neatly separated religious traditions. Human religion, language, culture, etc - have always been in flux.

Don't allow Hutton and his ilk to frame the debate in terms like this. It is not a matter of whether or not some of the religious traditions of Germanic peoples were influenced by Hellenism - of course they were! And vice versa. Those who disparage eclecticism and syncretism as degenerate cosmopolitanism and, therefore, not "really" Pagan, are borrowing from the wrong playbook.

Below are many of the peroblematic issues I related to an acquaintence yesterday re: Hutton's material, as a whole. However, while Hutton may certainly be polite (which he is!), that does not negate that he chose to mitigate the formiddible discipline of IE studies when he could have drawn on them at length! This simply cannot forgive *"some"* of what he writes in "Pagan Religions", because nearly the entire book is problematic (as well as everything else he's written); and it is his "authoritative" assertions that are equally as specious (to be polite about it!):

(I apollogies for the grammar; it was written in the heat of passion.)

Now, please don't take this the wrong way, but know that I am writing this because I am deeply passionate about history! But, what Hutton is tellig you is not entirely factual--at least not as he presents it, I'm afraid. You must understand, my friend, is that what he writes are not OBJECTIVE historiographies (which is what historians are SUPPOSED to write), but polemics--which means that Hutton can be as biased as he wants and only present the information in a very narro manner. However, having read many books by many scholars and authorities--even sources on which Hutton claimed to have relied--I became quite jaded when it came to my attention that through a lot of misleading work I have essentially been lied to by Prof. Hutton (perhaps, as far as he considers it, well-meaning). I don't know about you, but *I* certainly don't like feeling as though someone's attemtping to pull the wool over my eyes, rather than giving me the WHOLE story, and allow me to make an informed decision; rather than an edited version essentially out of conrext which is what a lot of sensationalist journalists do!

Often I have found that Hutton will attempt to prove his case by citing a scholar as being in agreement with himself (which is not any actual "argument" in the strict sense of the term); but, when I checked with what these scholars were saying, most of them didn't agree with him--they either didn't reach the same level of extremism as he (Hutton claims that no pagans were burned as witches, but none of his cited sources make this claim); or that his sources actually claim something--and present counter evidence--countering what Hutton claims they do (Hutton claims there was never any whiff of possibility that paganism could have survived throughout the medieval period; but his sources state something quite contrary, and even present formiddible evidence to back it up! Hell, JB Russell and Kieth Thomas go on at length about pagan worship in the middle ages--Thomas even speaks about the worship of the gods of the planets! Hutton never bring this up, so much as in passing!). Hutton is also skillful at ad homminem arguments as a method through which to dismiss evidence! But, Hutton also platantly misrepresents the works of other scholars (such as Carlo Ginzburg!), as though Ginzburg's material cannot speak for itself--he will not allow anyone to use research as counter-evidence to his unless he first pre-approves it!

His material is also full of unsubstantiated claims. While his material is also hypocritical--he does exactly what he criticizes other scholars and theses of doing (for which he rejects them). For example, he says an argument can't be based soley on the similarities when there are differences (despite how MINOR these differences may be!), when he has based pseudo-arguments of his own based soley on the similarities! He also shifts the burdon of proof, and alleges that he need not prove his case in order to demollish any counter-theories, which is specious reasoning. Then there's also Indo-European studies (a formiddible academic discipline) that is absolutely rejected as being extent, as a potential anwer to the topics his material concerns itself with. Then he also posits his personal OPINIONS as though they are unequivocal FACTS--for example, in Triumph of the Moon he claimns that not ONCE through history was any Goddess woirshipped through the hieros gamos ritual in order to acquire geographical of physiological fecundity; but Sumerologist, Samuel Noah Kramer states quite the opposite in his formiddible examinatin in "The Sumerians"! Then there's also his habit of baing FIRM and UNEQUIVOCAL CONCLUSIONS based upon very limited knowledge--they make him sound as though he has an exhaustive knowledge on any given topic, when he doesn't and is simply in error in claiing what he is without qualifying his assertions!

Here are two reviews about his books, The Pagan Religios of the British Isles that tackle many problems within this text--even pointing out factual inaccuracies and evidence he didn't even take the time to consider:

* www.suppressedhistories.net/arti....html
* www.asphodel-long.com/html/pa...ons.html

My conclusions, Christopher, we know a hell of a lot more that what Hutton is telling us that we do. Something has made him cynical, so we must know try to find out what that could be. Heck, you also need to reconcile the fact that DOZENS upon DOZENS of Historians present pagan History *vastly* different than Hutton does--and this makes Hutton no more correct than they, simply because Hutton happens to be an extremist zealot!

Also, it is worth commenting on that there's a formiddible branch of research coming out of continental Europe, Asia, Africa and India that you will likerly not even be aware of--British and Academic writers (including Hutton) don't even mention it's existence, giving one a misleading impression! (I don't know about you, but I dont like feeling as though I'm having knowledge kept from me, or made less accessible to me!) But, what these hundreds of scholars have found (and one could easily write a list as long as my arm in a 10 pt. font!) is that medieval witchcraft-belief is inseperable and tracible to endemic shamanic and pagan antecedants (period!). This was a MIND BOGGLING revalation when I discovered this wealth of academia that British and American scholars either aren't aware of, or simply rejected it without a thought, because it counters their preferred school of thought. But, they still haven't any right to mislead their readership in this way by phrasing their works authoritively as if no respectible scholzrs writing today have reached any conclusions differing rom threir own! Suffice it to say, Hutton's material is simply full of POOR methodology, I'm afraid. (And, I really don't like saying that, either, because it makes it hard for me to trust ANYONE!). Then there's also his uncritical reliance onto Prof. Norman Cohn as the only evidence with which to reject Murray's thesis, along with all it's plausible variants (which most specialists, sucha s JB Russell, state is unwise and overly extremist!), when he has been emonstrably proven by comparing Murray's actual writings alongside Cohn's claims, that Norman Cohn actually lied about her! Nor did Hutton seem to care (for he uncritically endorses Cohn without qualification!) that Cohn engages in ageist and sexist tactics with which to dismiss a scholar, thesis, or entirely uncoerced trial testimony! Also, this makes scholars sound like they simply haven't even boithered to read Murray's books!

Of course, I could go on, and on, and on, my friend in all of the problems I have found in Prof. Hutton's material. It's simply not up to the quality of that sort of material that Pagans ought to be quoting as though it represents empirical fact! Hey, Hutton was roundly castigated in a reply written by the Iron Age dept. currator for the British Museum (Dr. Hill) in responce to Hutton's claim that a famous bog body cannot be used as evidence of uman "sacrifice"; so, Dr. Hill had to state that Hutton was clearly 20 years behind the latest research!

All my best, and happy reading! Incidentally, I have a selection of recommended historically-based books on the first blog entry at my CovenSpace Profile, including the Holidays (it's like Myspace for Witches and Pagans): http://MacMorrighan.CovenSpace.Com

Take Care,
Wade MacMorrighan

------------------------------------------------------------

Can you see why I have such problems with him as a so-called "authoritive mannerism and style", now? ;o) (As if feeling as though I'm not being given the full story weren't bad enough! *G*) Though, perhaps I just hold Historians to a higher standard then they apparently hold themselves? Ya' know, it also comes to mind that I was sadly castigated years back for stating that Hutton should have writtem a propper Introduction to his book deeply explaining what methodology he was employing, and why; the only reason I can imagine hat he did not, was because it might have opened him up to some sort of scrutiny. Often, it has come to my attention, when reading his sources, that...if a scholar takes a middle of the road approach, Hutton goes further in taking an extremist approach, should the matter be undecided or qualifiable! Oh, and not once throughout his Pagan Religions did he mention the conclusiuons reached by most specialists in the field of Celtic Studies through many Journal articles: the rites and concept of the Soveeignty-Goddess an Sacral Kingship whereby the King/Chieftain was ritually mated to the land (as a goddess, or genius loci); I had to learn about that on my own through these specialist journals[!]--i was he, after all, who aledges to have an interest in such matters, and claims to have kept up with ALL the relavent scholarship on such topics in his Pagan Religions.

Care to add anything else, Curt?! *I'd* still like to know how Hutton has been allowed to get away with this!

Take Care,
Wade MacMorrighan