Pagan History's topics - tribe.net

Pre-IE/Eurasian Shamanic Hearth-Goddesses

2008-12-24T17:15:01Z

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". <www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/ain...oom04.html> [Last Accessed: 15 August, 2008]
[5] University of St. Francis. "Mount Fuji". <www.stfrancis.edu/ns/bromer...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]. <okinawa.com/content/blog.../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). <www.ic.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNK...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". <www.viahistoria.com/SilverHo...oms.html> [Last Accessed: 20 August, 2008].
[17] Shamanism in Siberia, Ibid.
[18] Mcalester College: Anthropology Dept. Mongolian Language Project: "Fire". <www.macalester.edu/anthropo...ire.html> [Last Accessed: 20 August, 2008].
[19] Bulag, Uradyn Erden [1998]. Nationalism and Hybridity in
Mongolia. Oxford University Press: pp. 71.

posted in Pagan History - 0 replies

Sheep & the PIE Hearth-Goddess

2008-12-24T14:09:58Z

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 Pagan History - 0 replies

Through the Alchemists' Eyes?

2007-11-12T05:52:23Z

Hey guys, for anyone who's studied the occult srts and sciences, they will be intimately familiar with a very similar "Table" of Correspondences:

* The Moon = Monday = Silver = White
* Mars = Teusday = Iron = Red
* Mercury = Wednesday = Mercury = Purple or mixed colours
* Jupiter = Thursday = Tin = Blue
* Venus = Friday = Copper = Green
* Saturn = Saturday = Lead = Black
* The Sun = Sunday = Gold = Yellow

Albeit, they are found within The [Greater] Key of Solomon, where do these attributations come from? While some of them are very common-sense; others are not! For example, copper oxide is green and when copper is exposed to fire that flame will burn green; Aphrodite even had a famous Temple on Cypress (from a Greek term for copper) which was famous for its copper mines. But, what about some other associations in this list: Jupiter, Thursday, Tin and the colour Blue? How did an attributation such as this come about in the minds of Alchemists? From whence did it evolve? Though, one wonders if there's something *more* to the attributations between Red, Tuesday, Mars and Iron; and Green, Friday, Venus and Copper?

posted in Pagan History - 0 replies

Hutton on Proto-Indo-Europeanism?!

2007-11-01T16:22:47Z

Hey guys, recently I have been deeply investigfating proto-Indo-Europeanism (culture, religion and mythology). Anyway, I was delightfully shocked by my initial findings! Yet, at the same time (as always), deeply dismayed that one historian in particular, when discussing the extent lit. and evidence for these European occurences refuses to admit to any Indo-European connection, let alone PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN originating stem! Many of these PIE stems is the World Tree (occuring throughout India, Ireland, and Norse, etc.) which Hutton allegedly rejects as Christian; deities that personify the Underworld and possess a dog (Greek, Hindu, Norse, Celtic, etc.) which is staunch in that same culture he deems Oddin to be almost entirely Christian, rather than Pagan!; and the Fates (British, Greek, Roman, Lithuanian, and Norse), though it is the Norse Wyrdd sisters whom Hutton aims his guns at and renderes as ultimately non-xistent (that is, that no pagan cults ever worshipped or acknowledged them) because he deemed them to be nothing more than Greek or ROman inventions by Norse clerics (period!). How exactly did he (or can anyone in this day) get away with this? It's blatantly misleading one's readership when to ignore this overwhelming evidence as being "inconsequential".

posted in Pagan History - 3 replies

Halloween

2007-10-23T20:18:33Z

What is everyone doing for Halloween? I'm up to my ears in fabric right now. My kids want costumes. I don;t do the scary stuff. For some reason, they have always wanted to be historical figures. This year they will be ancient Egyptians. It should be fun.

posted in Pagan History - 1 reply

ignorance

2007-10-21T06:44:52Z

Hello everyone. I was just skimming throuth Tribe a nd came upon this really cool group of people. As of today I am a member.
Here is my topic and give me some input...
We are tranplants from Az and are living in NC (which I absolutely love) which is considered the bible belt.
I have a sticker on my truck that says "pagan special forces from above and below" .
My neighbors kid asked my daughter if we were devil woshippers. Now, in my opinion, the devil has nothing to do with paganism because I think it is a christian "deity". How do explain to some really ignorant people that so much of the holidays and beieifs that they value are taken from a pagan calendar and pagan followings?
Do you just bite your tongue and vent to yourself?
I jsut told my daughter tell her no, we are not devil worshipers and basically ignore her because when people show their ignorance like that, they most likely won't have an open mind to listen to what you have to say.
What do you think?

posted in Pagan History - 2 replies

How Long, Hutton?

2007-10-18T06:36:04Z

Hey guys, here's a rather "odd" question: How long do you think Hutton can reasonably go on rejecting this formiddible research coming out of continental Europe (by blatantly ignoring it as though it doesn't exist, as he has up to now!) from the likes of Claude Lecauteux, Eva Pocs and Carlo Ginzburg? After all, every year more schgolars from continental Europe are publishing works along these lines [ie. early modern witchcraft-belief is inseperable from endemic shamanic pre-Christian antecedants]. What do you imagine it would take for him to start accepting it, or even admitting that this research exists? After all, I could compile a list, by now, of such scholars from Europe alone as long as my arm? However, this ignorance is not soley confined to Hutton, but seems to run rampont in most American and British scholars. (However, that *still* doesn;t make it right, or in any way acceptible.) So, one is lead to wonder why in the advancement of intellectual HONESTY where one isn't bvlatantly misleading their readership and getting away with it, because they are assuming that we plebs are too stupid to know what what's going on under our noses. I don't like continally being treated as though I am a "fool" by the *academic ruling* elite in the face of this over-whelming evidence!

posted in Pagan History - 2 replies

Hutton on "History"?

2007-10-15T00:38:10Z

Hiya, Curt! Perhaps you could aid me in a problem I am having... How is it that Hutton can cite various scholars in agreement with him when he alleges that there was not so much as a whisp of paganism (regardless of the definition) within early modern witchcraft-belief, or that entire period of time; yet, when one actually checks the sources on which Huttoin is relying, these authors state unequivocally the contrary, giving copious examples? How has Hutton not been censured by his academic peers for this? And, why is Norman Cohn not a constant source of emberassment for American and British academia for his sexist and ageist tactics that were employed by him soiley for the purposes of discrediting perfectly valid evidence, as well as his use of them against Margaret Murray, not to mention the fact that he demonstrably lied about her work in order to discredit her! In a nutshell: Cohn alleges that Murray ommittted fantastical details from her quoted extracts to make the Sabbats sound realistic; however, of all the extracts Cohn says she ommited, she *actually* considered them ALL in great detail throughout her books! Well...save for one, but this sole exception would not have discredited her in any way.

Sadly, when this was brought to Hutton's attention (surely he had read Murray's works?) he refused to admit that Cohn had been in error on these points. *sigh* Hutton has even gone so far as to mischaracterize the work of Carlo Ginzburg (as though it cannot speak for itself) when he alleges that it says only what he allows it so, because some researchers use it as evidence countering his preferred position! How can this reasonably be allowed?

So, my good friend, I ask you: WTF? ;o) After all, if I had done what Hutton had (or Cohn), I'd be terrified of being exposed as a fraud...and my Pagan peers woiuld be certain to pounce on me for it, too! So, again...WTF?

Take Care,
Wade

posted in Pagan History - 1 reply

Hello?

2007-10-12T13:47:21Z

Where is everyone?

posted in Pagan History - 1 reply

The problem of religious identity in the context of theocracy

2007-09-13T18:17:06Z

Simply put, the question is this:

How should we interpret professions of faith when said professions merely repeat what is required by law?

The implications for "Pagan History" should be obvious. ALL of the regions of the earth (specifically, North Africa, the Middle East and Europe) in which "Pagan" religions, as the term is generally understood, were practiced at one time eventually saw the establishment of Christian or Muslim theocracies. Many contemporary scholars and writers have simply taken professions of adherence to Islam and Christianity at face value - even when those professions occur during times of well-entrenched theocratic states. It is common practice to go so far as to offer such professions as "proof" of non-survival of Pagan religious traditions.

Discussion?

posted in Pagan History - 0 replies

Hello?

2007-08-27T02:10:41Z

Hello, anyone awake in here? I think it's time to raise the roof and make some noise!!!!

Go Pagans, Go Pagans, Go Pagans! LOL

Hello? what? who said that?

posted in Pagan History - 2 replies

"The History of British Magic After Crowley" by Dave Evans

2007-08-26T16:11:05Z

My circles are starting to talk about this book, so I thought I'd link it here. It looks to be a good read and I'll be picking it up. 440 pages.

"Both a professional academic researcher and practising magician, Dr Dave Evans delves deeply into modern British history to present a serious, but accessible and fascinating work, based on his recent and unique PhD, on developments in British magic after Aleister Crowley died... Not just a book about the history of magic, this research places magicians and their work into the broader society that we all live in, and shows how that magic has always been a part of our culture."

http://occultebooks.com/books/HistoryofMagickAfterCrowley/tabid/159/Default.aspx

posted in Pagan History - 1 reply

Some Notes on Prof. Carlo Ginzburg!

2007-07-13T03:48:18Z

Well, I was rummaging about Scholar.Google.Com (my new favourite site, 'cause I have access to ILL!), when I came upon a delicious-sounding academic article in praise of Carlo Ginzburg's methodology, called: "Journals to the World of the Dead," by John Martin in Journal of Social History [Spring, 1992], pp. 613-626. One may read the first page at JSTOR. Thankfully, there's a voice of reason (so it seems!), because Hutton rather ruthlessly mischaracterized Prof. Carlo Ginzburg's work, and chastizing all those who might use it to question his [Hutton's] quantifications, as if Carlo's material doesn't REALLY say what it actually does (in a rather weak "polemic" he write for the British Folklore journal)! Indeed, Hutton cranks, "It proves nothing!" other than that the accused-- so he wants us to believe-- had unusually intense DREAMS (period). But, look at what Ginzburg writes, relkating the transcripts:

"...the agonizing split in personalities experienced by the bendati during their lethargies [exhaustion or weakness], which they expressed in the physical seperation of the spirit from the inanimate body. ... [Maria Panzona] had believed, and still did--and she said so herself--that the spirit could leave the body, and return to it, but she did not know 'through what power'" [The Night Battles, 1963/1986: 102-103].

Moreover, as I re-read this, and reflected upon what Hutton so glibly wrote, I have a HARD TIME accepting that there were mere "dreams" because the accused individuals would have certainly been able to have recognized a dream for what it was! But, also, here, note that Hutton-- while absolutely dismissing the possibility that they were trance experience-- refused to quantiofy what a "trance experience" was to him! Because, it sure as Hel sounds like a trance-experience to me! Indeed, I have to wonder if he would be so glib and dismissive of other tribal and Siberian shamanic trance experiences? So, as with other of Hutton's unacknowledged criterion, what is it so important to him that it's not-- or that it can't be-- any form of trance? He, of course, doesn't say. Don't you think he should? Don't you think he should answer for his flagrent assumptions? In fact, why do professional scholars not call him on this, as I (and other Pagan researchers) have? Why leave it up to us? Can't they clean their own house? Strangely, with Hutton, he is so keen on dismissing somrthing as NOT, in this instance, a "trance"; but, he refuses to denote what a "trance" is, to him, which might open his methodology up to some scrutiny. Rather, he seems to right something off, using only his opinion as his only reason for doing so, leaving us only to uncritically accept him at his word. In other works Hutton flagrently says that something "is not a religion" or cannot be, in any sense, "pagan"; but, he refuses to quantify what, to HIM, constitutespaganism, or a "religion", in these instances. And, damn, that Australian reporter for CNN, Michael Wier, is HOT! Whew... Heh heh heh...

Take Care,
Wade

PS--I also find the continued mention of the importance of those who are "chosen" as a bendanti because they were born with a "caul"--a foetal membrane the surrounds the head at some births-- is also important. As I have heard, a lot of folk-lore contents that such is a sign of one with the psychic or clairvoyant abilities from birth. I wonder if such "choosing" can be found in other tribal or shamanistic societies, etc.?

posted in Pagan History - 0 replies

"The Druids"

2007-07-09T15:32:59Z

Wayelllll.... I must admit, from what I have read, I am *personally* dissatisfied with Hutton's latest text, as it's simply inadiquite (and, I'm surprised that no one's censured him on this clearly feeble, indeed, self-defeating polemic [not to be confused with an "argument"*, as I differentiate the two]). Anyway, in the current issue of PENTACLE magazine they reproduced a portion of a chapter from his recent book, "The Druids", which Ronald has claimed will do for Druidism what TOTM did for modern Witchcraft! Well, in this portion his thesis is that modern Druids (or those from the "renaissance" of Druidism that *did*) cannot be rebell Druids while using the ancient druids as supporting examples-- or role-models-- because, he writes, "In the strict sense of the expression, there were probably no rebel Druids in antiquity". Well, his argument fails immediately on two grounds: 1.) He doesn't define what "expression" of "rebel" he is using; and 2.) he actually supplies documentation of Druids throughout antiquity actually BEHAVING as "rebels"! As a result he seems tro be re-inventing the wheel and using his own unique connotation that the reader may only guess at. In fact, in a serious sense, he seems to be "arguing" backwards, rather than allowing the evidence to shape his "thesis". Now, is this meathodologically appropriate and even kosher? I seriously doubt it.

Unfortunately, this tactic is all too-common with Hutton's material, I have found. That is, keeping his methodology to himself or defining what he is engaged in writing about, rather than opening himself up to possibly scrutiny. Indeed, this is dearly unfortunate (hey, I'm a Pisces...we are a very moved and moving people!). Even Celticist John Carey, reviewing a mamoth-sized Dictionary on Celtic culture and religion, which was expansive in scope, stated that it's greatest tragic failing was that it did not lay out the approach that was adopted for one's readership. He maintains that all texts of this sort (even as Hutton's, I'll add) must do so! Well, at least I know I was never crazy in my stern belief that Hutton (and anyone, actually) should have been doing this from the onset. You don;t know what a relief this was! LOL... I kept getting the most hidious looks and messages, even calling me a "history revisionist" because one may not like my point of view, or that I was noticing some serious flaws within the superficial structure of certain scholars that are presently in vogue.

* It's sad to witness that the vast majority of Pagans don't know, or understand, the difference between the two; and that he write polemics ONLY!

Take Care,
Wade MacMorrighan

posted in Pagan History - 0 replies

Badger/Bear Spring-related folklore

2007-07-01T16:09:57Z

Hey guys, I'm lookin' for a little help. ;o) I am presently searching for any academic articles-- or books!-- dealing with early spring folklore, such as Groundhog's Day. However, I hear that in Europe the bear and badger is used instead of the woodchuck (Groundhog) in predicting spring. So far, I've not came up with any academic lit. (articles, which'll be easier for me to acquire, now) re: the bear and badger in use for seasonal "divination", if you will.

Take Care,
Wade MacMorrighan

posted in Pagan History - 0 replies

Academic Hypocracy!

2007-06-22T17:32:59Z

Hey guys, I've been meditating, recently, upon academia and many of their "practices" when the question entered my mind: Is there a word that denotes the practice prevailant amongst extremist scholars (such as Hutton) who, when they believe-- or agree with-- something will automatically invoke the academic concensus as the only "argument" that is necessary (which isn't actually an "argument" at all!); however, if they don't (or can't!) believe or agree with something they come up for as many reasons as they can for rejecting it, even regardless of the fact that most specialists in the field are of a different persuasion. (It simply doesn't seem like "polemic" would really apply as an apt denotation.) As an example of the latter, Hutton rather unequivocally ignored the general consensus of Celticists-- specialists in the field-- where an admittance of the Sovereign Rites and Sovereign-Goddesses of the Celtic tribes would have posed as useful information; not once, throughout "Pagan Religions" were we told that most Celtic scholars believe this (that is why I am so jaded, and why it pisses me off so desperately when other scholars that adore Hutton are so quick to excuse him or claim that he is simply following "academic protocol")! Indeed, another reason why I am so jaded is because he filtered what facts, or scholastic consensuses would be admitted to his readership-- this clearly leaves one with two impressions, because he is a "Professional Historian": 1.) There is NO evidence for such, 'cause he is a Historian and would certainly be aware of it if there were; and, 2.) either no scholars are in disagreement with him, or otherwise no other scholars have found any evidence, as well. I just hope I am not being too forward in admitting what harm this can potentially cause. Now, this isn't to say that one must believe everything one hears! However, it seems to me that it would be far more prudent to allow for other consensuses even if one does not, or cannot, agree with them; after all, why use, as an "argument" only the conclusions that agree with you, while denying the existence of those that you do not? Indeed, Hutton frequently uses, as "arguments", *only* the so-called "consensus" of specialist schoalrs where he agrees with them, chiefly throughout his recent "Witches, Druids & King Arthur". Hey, is there also an erudite term denoting this "practice" for "argument" within academia? *scratches his red head* I've just been wondering, is all...

Oh, and speaking of Hutton not giving equal weight to other scholastic leanings from specialists in a field, where he cannot bring himself to accept it, I just got ahold of a copy of Maire Breathnach's article from a Celtic studies journal (the title's in German and I don't feel like typing it out right now), called "The Sovereignty Goddess as Goddess of Death?" In it-- actually within a lengthy foot note-- the author brings our attention to the fact (as well as three other scholars, if I remember correctly without looking) that the Sheelagh-na-Gig carvings are STRIKINGLY similar to the description of many aged Sovereign-Goddesses throughout insular narrative lit. in which their pudenda is noted as hanging down between their knees, such as The Morrighan in "Da Derga's Hostel" (though, I may have to look that one up again, to see if I remmeber correctly).

Anyway, this clearly flies in direct opposition to Hutton's rather hard-nosed conclusions where he writes these carvings off as entirely a Christian invention for what seems to be to be VERY specious logic! (Of course, because Hutton write empirically-- why does he do that, anywya?!-- if one reads only his material *of course* one should expect him to make a superficially iron-clas "argument") I happen to tab this evidence right up there along with a scholar I found that reclaims the Green Man as a pagan god!

OH!!! And, one other important question I desperately would eventually appreciate an answer to (if I can find it, or anyone else here might know) is: Why DON'T scholars actually lay their cards out and explain why they have adopted a respective school of thought, and why they believe it to be superiour t all others that may very well lead to far different conclusions? It simply seems to me that Hutton often hides behind his personal methodology, which almost seems to *force* him to reach certain conclusions while rejecting everything else. So, I have come to believe that if he was open and honest in this way, than many more Pagans would simply view his material as one opinion of many, rather than that it is representative of the whole, or that every word he prints is infallible (a lot of cynical Pagans are of this belief regardless of when one PROVES to them otherwise-- and that's SO strange; for example, when PROVEN that what Norman Cohn said of Murray was demonstrably FALSE (in fact, it was a pack of lies!), they say "So?" and continue to proclaim that "she's a fool and has been debunked!" or even call her "the *biggest* Pagan douche!")! (Whew... Okay, Wade, catch a breath!)

Happy quantifying!

All my best,
Wade MacMorrighan

PS--A Happy (Belated) Summer Solstice to one and All!!!

posted in Pagan History - 0 replies

Pagan Familiar-Spirits!

2007-06-17T14:39:22Z

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

posted in Pagan History - 0 replies

Metals of the Gods...

2007-02-02T18:26:55Z

Hey guys, a friend of mine gave me a book today-- "The Universal Myths: Heroes, Gods, Tricksters and Others", by Alexander Eliot (with contributions by Joseph Campbell & Mircea Eliade; the latter whom Hutton decided to "debunk" in one of his recent books on shamanism, as if yo make his grandfather suck eggs!). Anyway, as I was thumbing through it, I came upon the following passage that I have never heard of, before, in any myths that have come to my attention to date (where the Gods are specifically concerned, as opposed to Renaissance occultism):

"According to classical legend, the minerals common to our planet indicate the erstwhile presence of heavenly bodies here on earth. Iron is the cloak of Mars left behind when he deserted the earth; lead is Saturn's cloak; quicksilver is the claok of Mercury and so on. Gold was the garment of the sun when that burning deity wandered the earth, and silver was the nude moon's headdress" [pp. 94].

So...I was wondering if anyone might know where I might find these specific myths. Hoever, what of Jupiter and tin or Venus and copper *grin*, mythically-speaking? I'd love to find the relavent source-material. *G* When I ran a few search terms through Google this evening, it lead me to a passage from Geoffrey Chacer's The Canterbury Tales; indeed, it has been suggested that one can learn much about the occult prevalent during Chaucer's time from this text. However, the passage in question reads as follows:

"The first of spirits, then, quicksilver is,
The second arsenic, the third, ywis,
Is sal ammoniac, the fourth brimstone.
The seven bodies I'll describe anon:
Sol, gold is, Luna's silver, as we see,
Mars iron, and quicksilver's Mercury,
Saturn is lead, and Jupiter is tin,
And Venus copper, by my father's kin!"
["The Canon's Yeoman's Tale", The Canterbury Tales, stanzas 270-275; c. Thirteenth Century].

Take Care,
Wade

posted in Pagan History - 3 replies

celsus & epicurus on "polytheism"

2007-01-19T18:22:39Z

Celsus is often cited as a Pagan author who was supposedly a "Pagan Monotheist". However, if one actually reads Celsus, one finds that this is not true, as the following shows.

"... without rational cause the goatherds and shepherds followed Moses, who taught them that there was but one God - deluded, apparently, by his rather naive beliefs - and caused them to forsake their natural inclinations to credit the existence of many Gods. For our part, we acknowledge the many: Mnemosyne, who gave birth to the Muses by Zeus; Themis, Mother of the Hours; and so on. Yet those goatherds and shepherds came to believe in one God and called him the Most High - Adonai, the Heavenly One - or sometimes Sabaoth, or whatsoever - and came to discredit all other Gods....

"The Christians ignore the good offices of the Dioscori, of Herakles, Asclepios and of Dionysus, and say that these are not Gods because they were humans in the first place. Yet they profess belief in a phantom god who appeared only to members of his little club, and then, so it seems, merely as a kind of ghost."

Taken from Hoffman's edition of "Celsus on the True Doctrine".

Also, Epicurus, who is often portrayed as some kind of atheist, observed: "For there are Gods -- the knowledge of them is self-evident" Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus (Long & Sedley "Hellenistic Philosophers" vol. 1, p. 140)

posted in Pagan History - 0 replies

Great Site, Bro.!

2007-01-13T06:10:09Z

However, while I do not disagree with you (I very much believe every word you've written, because you back it up with evidence), I must wonder... How have scholars that have reviewen his books ignored these facts and this information? That is what concerns me most, as an avid reader and researcher...

Take Care,
Wade

posted in Pagan History - 0 replies

Adam and Eve?

2007-01-13T05:06:03Z

Apparently a pagan story that pre-dates the bible by a couple of thousand years,
that tells the story of the agricultural revolution.

posted in Pagan History - 3 replies