Gardner's Lack of Credibility

[Carla O'Harris]

If someone is educated in that area I take it mean that their knowledge base is greater and I usually do give more credence to someone educated in the field than to someone who is not. Would you go to a doctor who hasn't gone through medical school to be treated in conventional medicine? Or to a conventional doctor to be treated with traditional methods unless he or she can produce credentials that prove education in alternative medicine?


I give credence based on clarity of arguments and explanatory power of identified patterns primarily, and as long as the facts upon which those arguments stand is well-documented, the occupational or prestige status of the author is irrelevant.

In fact, given the tendency of academic scholars to repeat scholastic fakelore, which has been documented over and over again, there is no inherent reason to trust their knowledge of the facts over any other independent scholar.

And it's not a matter of "going to" a doctor. A more appropriate analogy would be listening to two different arguments about a medical matter, because our interest here is theoretic not life-or-death. Under life-or-death or even urgent health situations, we may not have the time to engage in a full investigation due to urgency. But in assessing a theoretical point we can well investigate the matter at hand and do not have to depend upon shortcuts. Obviously credentialization is one shortcut, but it is not always guaranteed. There are plenty of certified medical quacks out there, as any review of the cases before a state medical board will testify. And in a theoretic medical argument, a lay person may very well make a better case than a doctor. I have read several books where informed laypersons made much better arguments than medical doctors.

And given the analogy, let's keep in mind that even if you define "witch" not as a religious practitioner but by the lowest common denominator of "cunning folk", these were healing practitioners who were unofficial, unlicensed, and unsanctioned. In other words, the people we revere as part of our religion were from the dominant perspective "quacks". They were as a whole not educated in universities nor necessarily familiar with the scholastic tradition, and many never visited a library in their entire life. The Greeks called them "pharmakon" and the Romans "veneficia", "poisoners", dabblers in pharmaceutical experimentation at the grassroots level. Even if you consider the "witch" to be nothing more than a literary trope, the trope which we have made central is a maverick figure completely outside the dominant discourse and institutions, quite happy with providing services that differed, ignored, or only gave lip service to dominant theories and methodologies. And yet they were heavily depended on by the folk for healing, and their herbs and methods were often called upon by those who were in official positions, such as Hildegard or Paracelsus. They weren't concerned with impressing the authorities. That is why I find the need to dress everything in the hegemonic scholarship to be utterly baffling.

[Carla O'Harris]

Sorry for the triple posting. Computer error.

[*Rasenna*]

You know, what's funny is that Hutton engages in this little game of "poisoning the well", using innuendo to cast doubts on the reputation of people like Graves, Leland, etc.

Yeah, but that's fine because he's from the other side. :graduate:

I hope you'll write him a letter critiquing this tactic on his part.The logical conclusion is that Hutton's findings are on par with Chariot of the Gods. I have no problem with that conclusion, and am glad that through this logic, you'll agree.

You go girl!

Could be--but in her later years she fell into the class of scholars such as Linus Pauling who were unquestionably brilliant but but hared off on personal hobby horses.

One thing that I find hard to understand is why one bad book means we have to dismiss all the previous good ones. Certainly Murray and Gimbutas weren't wrong about everything they wrote. But people sure are eager to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Ancient Goddesses, edited by Lucy Goodison and Christine Morris, is very interesting. Female archeaologists re-examine the field data used by Gimbutas to support her Great Goddess theory.

I found the book to be a poor attempt to discredit the Great Goddess beliefs. For a good scholarly book that supports the Great Goddess evidence check out The Myth of the Goddess, Evolution of an Image, by Anne Baring and Jules Cashford.

I think I, and other people here, would be much more inclined to take you seriously if you were not constantly calling our piety into question.

You're a fine one to be pointing any fingers. Almost everything you post has snide remarks and sarcasm. Your deliberate personal criticism of others is very unflattering to you. I'd chalk it up to immaturity but I know many people your age who don't have to stoop to this kind of thing in a debate.

And curiously, I could say the same thing about you, come to think of it.
Hello, pot. This is kettle. YOU'RE BOTH BLACK!

What's laughable here is that you don't recognize that you're looking in the mirror and seeing the faces of other people instead of your own.

[Greyharp]

You're a fine one to be pointing any fingers. Almost everything you post has snide remarks and sarcasm. Your deliberate personal criticism of others is very unflattering to you. I'd chalk it up to immaturity but I know many people your age who don't have to stoop to this kind of thing in a debate.

Hmmm, well let's see.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carla O'Harris
You know, what's funny is that Hutton engages in this little game of "poisoning the well", using innuendo to cast doubts on the reputation of people like Graves, Leland, etc.

Yeah, but that's fine because he's from the other side.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyharp
I can't say I agree with your thinking.

Wow, imagine my shock at this news!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Elderbush
If you submit it for accademic review I believe that it will not be proved but why don't you do that? Submit your evidence to a reputable history department and defend it before a review board.

Oh a panel, you mean like the three monkeys - see no evil , hear no evil, speak no evil!?

I guess you get the picture. Neither side can claim innocence when it comes to sarcasm and snide remarks, I know I can't. If we're going to point the finger at others, we should have the decency to be honest about our own behaviour.

What's laughable here is that you don't recognize that you're looking in the mirror and seeing the faces of other people instead of your own.

[Maggie]

You don't. But finding that some things are either not supported at all or supported only by her edited findings calls all her work into question. What else did she fudge? And when academic work is used to SUPPORT the theory it is at the same time open to questioning on academic grounds. I've said this before in another thread. Religious belief of any kind is not susceptible to proof of any kind. But when archeaological, literary, or any other kind of evidence is offered as proof of such beliefs that evidence is open to debate on academic grounds.


[quote]I found the book to be a poor attempt to discredit the Great Goddess beliefs. For a good scholarly book that supports the Great Goddess evidence check out The Myth of the Goddess, Evolution of an Image, by Anne Baring and Jules Cashford.

No. It is a compilation of essays by female scholars who are re-examining the physical evidence and interpretations that Gimbutas herself presented to support her Great Goddess Theory. And I've pointed out earlier that all authors have agendas--which may be as simple as wanting to write a book because they want to write a book--including the authors you've just mentioned. For what reasons do you consider it a "good, scholarly book"?

Maggie

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Gimbutas did excellent work documenting her findings. Her books are lavishly and beautifully illustrated; their only fault in that area is that the illustrations are usually line-drawings and the photos are black and white. Of course, sacrifices must be made in concession to cost.
However, I find that Gimbutas has a tendency to see an Ancient Goddess in the slightest of evidence, like a pair of circles on a wall, and then engages in speculation as to the religious signifigance of these figures. She also classifies androgynous figures as female. Now, I don't think we're going to find anything concrete in regards to the religion of ancient Europe. I do not believe there is enough evidence that has survived through the millenia.
And on the topic, I found her earlier book, 'The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe', more biased than her later 'The Language of the Goddess'.
Anyway, Gimbutas is not the topic here, Gardner and Murray's witch-cult are. In the process of re-reading Murray's 'God of the Witches' I still find nothing in common with Gardner's Wicca. Zilch, nada, nothing!
And though you may dislike Kelley and Hutton, you cannot deny that they have made great contributions to the study of Wiccan history, and done much to clarify or provide context to muddy issues. Of course, you still provide no evidence that they are biased, aside from your sayso, and are still harping on those damn cunningfolk. I just don't get it.
*edit*
There's a good book out there called 'Goddess Unmasked' by Philip Davis that explores the holes in the Great Mother Goddess Myth. I will admit out front the author seems to have a bias, but for the life of me I can't decide in whose favour it is.

[Maggie]

I give credence based on clarity of arguments and explanatory power of identified patterns primarily, and as long as the facts upon which those arguments stand is well-documented, the occupational or prestige status of the author is irrelevant.[quote]

And so you'd believe the theory of ancient extraterrestrials visiting earth simply because a proponent can explain clearly what pattern he or she sees in ancient art to support their belief? And what facts would you accept? Or documentation? Or can you even accept that some can look at a set of facts and reach different conclusions? This reminds me of the debate going on about warm-blooded and cold blooded dinasaurs. One acknowledged expert in the field does not have a Phd, another acknowled expert on the other side does. Both have their proponents but neither side is accusing the other of having agendas, repeating "fakelore" or any of the other accusations that have been made. Those kind of arguements seem to appear only when religion is involved.

[quote]In fact, given the tendency of academic scholars to repeat scholastic fakelore, which has been documented over and over again, there is no inherent reason to trust their knowledge of the facts over any other independent scholar.

What "fakelore"? Documented how? And what facts are disputed? And an independant scholar can have a degree just as easily as a non-independant scholar. BTW--what is an independant scholar?

Obviously credentialization is one shortcut, but it is not always guaranteed. There are plenty of certified medical quacks out there, as any review of the cases before a state medical board will testify. And in a theoretic medical argument, a lay person may very well make a better case than a doctor. I have read several books where informed laypersons made much better arguments than medical doctors.

Yes, and credentilization is used primarily for just that purpose. I know from experience that having a degree doesn't mean that you won't run into an idiot with a string as long as his or her arm. What kind of books and what kind of arguments? Experience in the field also counts a great deal. I'd have to see a really good arguement by this 'informed layperson' before I'd take their case over a practicing doctor.

And given the analogy, let's keep in mind that even if you define "witch" not as a religious practitioner but by the lowest common denominator of "cunning folk", these were healing practitioners who were unofficial, unlicensed, and unsanctioned. In other words, the people we revere as part of our religion were from the dominant perspective "quacks". They were as a whole not educated in universities nor necessarily familiar with the scholastic tradition, and many never visited a library in their entire life. The Greeks called them "pharmakon" and the Romans "veneficia", "poisoners", dabblers in pharmaceutical experimentation at the grassroots level. Even if you consider the "witch" to be nothing more than a literary trope, the trope which we have made central is a maverick figure completely outside the dominant discourse and institutions, quite happy with providing services that differed, ignored, or only gave lip service to dominant theories and methodologies. And yet they were heavily depended on by the folk for healing, and their herbs and methods were often called upon by those who were in official positions, such as Hildegard or Paracelsus. They weren't concerned with impressing the authorities. That is why I find the need to dress everything in the hegemonic scholarship to be utterly baffling.


I don't entirely understand your argument here. And a quick web search showed that word "pharmakon" is problematical and can mean both remedy and poison.

I am not Wiccan, I am a polytheistic celtic pagan. I have been reading this thread and looking mostly at the terms in which it is being conducted which I find curious. In my POV you've conflated several things in this last paragraph and I really don't know how to answer it.

Maggie

[*Rasenna*]

Well, Greyharp, you conveniently left off the smiley & winkie faces from my posts in your quotes of my text, which by the way indicate humor. But if you need to edit me in order to make your point appear credible there's little I can do (other than set the record straight).

But, that said, I'll grant you that the monkey comment, although meant to be funny (as in I laughed when it popped into my head) can certainly be seen as sarcasm. But still, it lacks a pointed criticism of an individual as we so often see in Mr. Snide's remarks.

For what reasons do you consider it a "good, scholarly book"?

Because it's not out to trash others who disagree, it simply states the case supported by evidence from various fields. This strikes me as a presentation rather than a deconstruction, which I find refreshing in an academic work.

[Maggie]

Because it's not out to trash others who disagree, it simply states the case supported by evidence from various fields. This strikes me as a presentation rather than a deconstruction, which I find refreshing in an academic work.


Neither is Ancient Goddesses. I suspect you see it that way because you don't agree with it, and find the other to be recommended because you do.


Maggie

[Greyharp]

Well, Greyharp, you conveniently left off the smiley & winkie faces from my posts in your quotes of my text, which by the way indicate humor.

I pasted them in Rasenna, but the forum let me down and didn't replicate them, so I would like to think I quoted you rather than edited you. As for sarcasm actually being humour, well, I think it can be both, I've certainly had a giggle anyway.

[Carla O'Harris]

And so you'd believe the theory of ancient extraterrestrials visiting earth simply because a proponent can explain clearly what pattern he or she sees in ancient art to support their belief?

This is interesting. This is the second time this alien-thing has been brought up.

I suppose if I were evaluating an alien story I would have to judge the coherence of the arguments themselves (the REASONING, which is what matters), the handling of the facts, and the explanatory power of the proposed model. If the explanation was superior to other explanations, and the facts were well-handled and accurate, and the arguments were clear, and if other arguments were either dealt with or the reasons shown for objections spurious, then I might very well consider it. However, I don't have much of an interest in extraterrestrials, ancient or modern.

However, in any case, the author would have to show more than simply artwork. There would have to be a broader range of evidence. Still, if the artwork was very compelling, while it might not convince me entirely, it still might make me put it in my "hmmmm" category awaiting further evidence.

In the case of the witch religion, there is far more than a subjective interpretation of artwork, so I'm not sure I'm following. There are popular, nonacademic writers who I would generally avoid because my impression of them is that they are not very careful or rigorous, if that's what you're asking. My sentiments are (obviously) neither anti-intellectual nor anti-discipline, but rather valuing scholarship that is independent of conformist institutions, and it is quite possible to have highly intellectual, disciplined work that has no allegiance to the academy.

As far as my witch-as-subaltern, what do you feel I've conflated? I believe I made a good argument. And for the record, I listed one of the meanings of "pharmakon" as "poison". Any drug is a poison ; it all depends on the dosage. This is especially the case when informal experimentations are going on. If the history of "controlled substances" ("poisons") is any indication, the drug war has been going on for a long time. The merits of this might be argued.

[*Rasenna*]

In the process of re-reading Murray's 'God of the Witches' I still find nothing in common with Gardner's Wicca. Zilch, nada, nothing!

Ummm, did you really actually read the book? It refers to a horned god, a goddess, covens with 13 members, signs of degrees/ranks, the Sabbat, initiation, wine&cakes& meal, ritual use of candles (as opposed to just lighting), chief festivals, vows, and offices such as maiden and summoner, and so on. These all appear in Gardner’s Wicca.

I pasted them in Rasenna, but the forum let me down and didn't replicate them, so I would like to think I quoted you rather than edited you. As for sarcasm actually being humour, well, I think it can be both, I've certainly had a giggle anyway.

It's amazing how much miscommunication can take place in the written word. I wasn't saying that sarcasm is humor; I was saying that I purposely used the icons to indicate intended humor in my remarks. That is something quite different from Mr. Snide's intentionally personal criticisms and mean-spirited insults.

[Greyharp]

It's amazing how much miscommunication can take place in the written word.

It's not amazing at all, people misjudge other's written statements all the time, which is why we spend so much time clarifying ourselves on forums such as this and as I am about to do now.

I wasn't saying that sarcasm is humor

No I was, or at least I meant it could be one and the same.


I was saying that I purposely used the icons to indicate intended humor in my remarks.

I know.

That is something quite different from Mr. Snide's intentionally personal criticisms and mean-spirited insults.

I agree. Although I stand by my "sarcasm and snide remarks" statement. I could talk about the insinuating nature of those comments, but it wasn't my point, which was to whine about the tiresome hypocrisy of one side blaming the other for name-calling, when they're both guilty. But of course this doesn't contribute to the subject at hand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfire Darkmoon
In the process of re-reading Murray's 'God of the Witches' I still find nothing in common with Gardner's Wicca. Zilch, nada, nothing!

Ummm, did you really actually read the book? It refers to a horned god, a goddess, covens with 13 members, signs of degrees/ranks, the Sabbat, initiation, wine&cakes& meal, ritual use of candles (as opposed to just lighting), chief festivals, vows, and offices such as maiden and summoner, and so on. These all appear in Gardner’s Wicca.

Now THIS I agree with. Although I have yet to read Murray's God of the Witches, The Witch-Cult in Western Europe and Gardner's Witchcraft Today have a lot in common. As I pointed out in a recent post, Murray wrote the introduction to Witchcraft Today and is quoted by Gardner in his book. Gardner's conclusions are very similar, which brings us back to the point of this thread. Murray's theories now lack credibility and so, therefore, does Gardner's.

For all the talk about the nature of scholarship, what constitutes an argument, the difference between proof and evidence, the lack of evidence supplied by the doubters, and the supposed stubborn refusal of the doubters to acknowledge the validity of the evidence supplied by the pro-Witch-Cult people, nothing I have read in this thread has convinced me that Wicca is a direct continuation of an ancient Witch-Cult, or that such a Witch-Cult existed. What I have learnt is that there is more to historical witchcraft than I have so far read, which makes me hungry to read more. But that that historical witchcraft was a religion, especially with a common source or in a cohesive form - I am not yet convinced. That historical witches dabbled with the religions of their day and location, I find a more compelling arguement.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I was evidently unclear. Where exactly does Murray mention a goddess? I mean my comments primarily in regards to theology, because I really see no similarities.
Of course, saying that those things are common with Wicca can easily be interpreted in this light: Gardner was all over Murray, and copied an awful lot from her books.

[David19]

I've never read Murrey's books, but i've heard Gardner liked a lot of her works, and she did publish her books before Gardner (didn't she?), so maybe Gardner liked them so much, he put some of her ideas in his book? (and it's not like he's the only author or person to plagerise).

I think a lot of people don't want to believe Gardner could lie, i believe that wicca is a great religion (although i'm not a wiccan), and i think Gardner did know a lot about magic (probably a lot more than you see published), so i think he was a great witch, but he was human, and humans do lie, i'm not saying he didn't stumble upon some kind of 'witch coven' or group, since i'm not a historian, i don't know, but people need to know, he was human, and humans aren't perfect, they aren't fluffy and good (as New Agers and SRW want you to believe).

[*Rasenna*]

I was evidently unclear. Where exactly does Murray mention a goddess?

Hmm, I thought we were talking about her book The Witchcult in Western Europe, which contains the following (the bolding is my own emphasis in the passage ):

From the Introduction (Barnes & Noble edition, 1999):

"Ritual Witchcraft - or, as I propsoe to call it, the Dianic cult – embraces the religious beliefs and ritual of the people known in late mediaeval times as Witches.” – page 12

“The deity of this cult was incarnate in a man, or a woman, or an animal…”

“The feminine form of the name, Diana, is found throughout Western Europe as the name of the female deity or leader of the so-called Witches, and it is for this reason that I have called this ancient the Dianic cult” - page 12

“As a general rule the woman’s position, when divine, is that of the familiar or substitute for the male god.” - pages 13-14


As to her book The God of the Witches, she is naturally dealing with the god figure and not the goddess figure. However, the chapter on the Priesthood deals a bit with the role of women as priestesses and the references to them are more about representations of the divine in their ritual roles or offices. Granted it's not as clear as in her other book, but since the two books go hand-in-hand it's still discernible and pertinent to the "cult" of witches.

Of course, saying that those things are common with Wicca can easily be interpreted in this light: Gardner was all over Murray, and copied an awful lot from her books.

Or it can be viewed as something Gardner found very confirming from his own experience with the witches he knew. The confidence he gained from reading something like-minded from an academic probably helped bolster his position.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

If they worshipped a goddess, then why does Murray not SAY so? She claims they worshipped a god named Janus or Dianus (which is why she called it the Dianic cult, although I admit she said 'Dianus' was the male version of 'Diana', a fact I am currently unable to verify, but it makes sense).
Out of all the trail records I myself have read (many courtesy of the amazing book 'The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology' by Rossel Hope Robbins, an excellent resource) I recall no mentions of a goddess - instead, they talk of worshipping Satan, Sathan, or a Black Man. The only source I can think of for Murray even calling the god Dianus is from 'Canon Episcopi', to be honest. Unfortunately, the only copy of 'Witch-Cult' I have is from Sacred Texts so its accuracy may be questionable.
David, Murray wrote 'Witch-Cult' in 1922, Gardner wrote 'Witchcraft Today' in 1954. Graves, who is often cited as a source (I still don't get why, to be honest) published 'The White Goddess' in 1946. Is that enough timeline?
I've seen a few people say that Murray was inspired by Jules Michlet's 'La Sorciere'. Any comments?

[Paracelsus]

i thought that we might have moved on a bit in a couple of days, and in volume we certainly seem to - don't you guys have to go to work ever?

Anyway, I do feel that the following comment has to be challenged -


Funny me that I thought that people claiming to be Wiccans might share some similar premises. But perhaps here a distinction between Huttonian-Kellyian Wicca and classic Gardnerian or Gardnerian-derived Wicca might be in order.

I don't know what you are trying to get at here Carla, but you seem to be imputing some sort of theological schism, which is pretty ridiculous. I don't understand how you can suggest this divide when Hutton is himself a Gardnerian initiate, and indeed, as I've stated earlier, as taken the risk of being public about that as a respected academic (which demonstrates a degree of integrity, I think you'll agree). Imputing, as you have done pretty frequently, that Ronald is some kind of enemy to Wicca is missing the point (which I have laboured before, but here we go again), that in fact as a Wiccan initiate himself he has done a great deal of hard work for the Craft, and for Pagans in general in the UK (and elsewhere), and to suggest that he is a "heretic" of some description is not merely downright rude, but ignoring the wide diversity of opinion within all pagan and Wiccan circles as to history and theology. Very few of the Wiccan initiates that I know here in the UK would be as supportive of the Murrayite thesis as yourself, indeed far more would go with Ronald's version of history.

[Carla O'Harris]

Well, then, they deserve the label of "Huttonite" then, don't they?

I don't think there's anything snippy or inappropriate about naming a basic divide here. People who believe the whole thing was made up and follow Hutton and Kelly's theories deserve to be called Hutton-Kellyite Wiccans. They are not the same thing as those who have faith in the basic stories the religion follows. Having faith in those stories is not the same thing as unquestioning, blind faith.

I'm not saying those people are heretics or lesser. They're simply a different School.

And I don't give a damn how many people subscribe to it. Truth ain't a democracy.

[Carla O'Harris]

Gardner was all over Murray.

Really? Is there a video of this? Is it like the Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson video?

[Carla O'Harris]

Gimbutas did excellent work documenting her findings. Her books are lavishly and beautifully illustrated; their only fault in that area is that the illustrations are usually line-drawings and the photos are black and white. Of course, sacrifices must be made in concession to cost.
However, I find that Gimbutas has a tendency to see an Ancient Goddess in the slightest of evidence, like a pair of circles on a wall, and then engages in speculation as to the religious signifigance of these figures. She also classifies androgynous figures as female. Now, I don't think we're going to find anything concrete in regards to the religion of ancient Europe. I do not believe there is enough evidence that has survived through the millenia.
And on the topic, I found her earlier book, 'The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe', more biased than her later 'The Language of the Goddess'.
Anyway, Gimbutas is not the topic here, Gardner and Murray's witch-cult are. In the process of re-reading Murray's 'God of the Witches' I still find nothing in common with Gardner's Wicca. Zilch, nada, nothing!
And though you may dislike Kelley and Hutton, you cannot deny that they have made great contributions to the study of Wiccan history, and done much to clarify or provide context to muddy issues. Of course, you still provide no evidence that they are biased, aside from your sayso, and are still harping on those damn cunningfolk. I just don't get it.
*edit*
There's a good book out there called 'Goddess Unmasked' by Philip Davis that explores the holes in the Great Mother Goddess Myth. I will admit out front the author seems to have a bias, but for the life of me I can't decide in whose favour it is.


I disagree with your conclusions here, but I think this is a much more fair assessment of an important scholar.

[Carla O'Harris]

You don't. But finding that some things are either not supported at all or supported only by her edited findings calls all her work into question. What else did she fudge?

This is not logical. First of all, unless you can right now prove that she "fudged" anything -- and I want to see quotes, page numbers, etc. --- you are engaging in slander, period. Secondly, simply because there are some things unsupported in a work by NO MEANS "calls the whole work into question". That is absolute 100% bonafide rubbish. What it means is that you are then obligated to carefully review the book and not throw the baby out with the bathwater, sorting out what is of value and what is not. Rejecting anything wholesale is absurd.

[Carla O'Harris]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review :

In addition, some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy. The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream'" theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.




Bingo!!!

[*Rasenna*]

If they worshipped a goddess, then why does Murray not SAY so?

She does, look at the passage again:

“The feminine form of the name, Diana, is found throughout Western Europe as the name of the female deity or leader of the so-called Witches, and it is for this reason that I have called this ancient the Dianic cult”

She's saying that she named it the Dianic cult after the "female deity" of the witches. This is commonly known. For example historian Julio Caro Baroja notes on page 65 of his book The World of Witches:

"Some years ago Margaret Murray...maintained that what we generally call witchcraft (or 'The Witch Cult' as she called it) was merely the survival of the cult of Diana in Europe, or to be more specific, in western Europe." – page 65

Rosemary Guiley notes in her book The Encyclopedia of Witches & Witchcraft:

“Murray called witchcraft 'the Dianic cult' because of the pagan worship of Diana.” – page 234

The Diana and Dianus pair is supported by the writings of St. Martin of Braga who noted their worship among country people. Baroja writes: There seems to have been a flourishing cult of Diana among European country people in the fifth and sixth centuries." (page 65). In footnote #24 Baroja mentions in conjunction with Diana the name "Dianum" (another Latin form of Dianus). Frazer, in his book The Golden Bough, also mentions Diana and Dianus as a mated pair in the Dianic cult that flourished in the sacred grove at Nemi in ancient Rome.

Murray is also saying there is a goddess figure when she states:

“The deity of this cult was incarnate in a man, or a woman, or an animal…” (note deity was sometimes female)

“As a general rule the woman’s position, when divine, is that of the familiar or substitute for the male god.” (note the mention of the feminine representation of the divine).


Out of all the trail records I myself have read (many courtesy of the amazing book 'The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology' by Rossel Hope Robbins, an excellent resource) I recall no mentions of a goddess - instead, they talk of worshipping Satan, Sathan, or a Black Man.

The quickest response is to quote from the Witches' Craft:

"...according to professor Eva Pocs (Between the Living and the Dead, Central European University Press, 1999) there are 36 documented cases in which a "fate goddess" appears in Hungarian witchcraft spanning 3 centuries of witch trials. We find that in Italy, the worship of the goddess Diana periodically appears in trial transcripts dating from 1390-1647. According to historian Carlo Ginzburg (Ecstasies) in Germany the goddess Diana appears in witch trials and is called Unholde, or die selige Frawn (the beautiful woman). Other female deities show up in German witch trials transcripts as well, such as Fraw Berthe and Fraw Helt. From an Italian source, Ginzburg also supplies a drawing that appeared on a proclamation from the Inquisitor Camillo Campeggi (1564) which depicts the "goddess of night" approaching a witch. Modern scholars dismiss the mention of goddesses in witchcraft trial transcripts and witchcraft literature as being of any proof that witches worshipped a goddess or that witchcraft was ever a religion.

Pierre de Lancre, a French witchfinder, wrote a description of the Basque witches' sabbat in his Tableau de l'inconstance des mauvais anges, published in 1612. Lancre states that a goat figure is seated on a chair; seated to his right is "the Queen of the Sabbat" and witches come forward, kneeling, to present children before them. This is clearly an act of reverence towards the couple. The witches then feast and dance in celebration before the seated couple, who do not participate in the celebrations themselves. This description excludes the figures from being viewed as "High Priest" and "High Priestess" images, but is highly suggestive of the concept of a venerated god and goddess in witchcraft. A similar account appears in the Basque witch trial of Maria Miguel, in 1595, who confessed to attending a sabbat where two figures sat on chairs. One figure was a man with a goat's head and the other was a female figure, which Maria commented was his spouse.

Here are some trial excerpts and commentaries:

1280: Diocesan Council of Conserans associates the “Witch Cult” with the worship of a Pagan Goddess.

1310: Council of Trier associated witches with the Goddess Diana (and Herodias).

1313: Giovanni de Matociis wrote in his Historiae Imperiales that many lay people believed in a nocturnal society headed by a queen they call Diana.

1390: A woman tried by the Milanese Inquisition for belonging to the “Society of Diana” confessed to worshipping the “Goddess of Night” and stated that “Diana” bestowed blessings upon her.

1457: Three women tried in Bressanone confessed that they belonged to the “Society of Diana” (as recorded by Nicholas of Cusa).

1519: Girolamo Folengo (Italian poet) associated a “Mistress” known as Gulfora with witches who gathered to worship at Her Court, in his Maccaronea.

1526: Judge Paulus Grillandus wrote of witches in the town of Benevento who worshiped a goddess at the site of an old walnut tree.

1576: Bartolo Spina wrote in his Quaestrico de Strigibus, listing information gathered from confessions, that “witches” gathered at night to worship “Diana,” and had dealings with night spirits.

1647: Peter Pipernus wrote, in his De Nuce Maga Beneventana and De Effectibus Magicis, of a woman named Violanta, who confessed to worshipping Diana at the site of an old walnut tree in the town of Benevento.

1749: Girlamo Tartarotti associated the Witch Cult with the ancient cult of Diana, in his book Del Congresso Nottorno Delle Lammie. In his A Study of the Midnight Sabbats of Witches he wrote: “The identity of the Dianic Cult with modern witchcraft is demonstrated and proven.”

I've seen a few people say that Murray was inspired by Jules Michlet's 'La Sorciere'. Any comments?

Oh, you'll never find me at a loss for a comment! ;)

More likely they're seeing the same thing in the available evidence. As should be plain by now (from posts by me, Carla and Raven) there are plenty of pieces of evidence that suggest the theme we've discussed. Granted you and others don't feel the evidence proves anything, but it exists anyway. Its existence, and what it all suggests, has inspired people like Michelet, Murray, and Gardner. That is to say "inspired" in the sense of urging further research as a means of confirmation.

[Maggie]

This is not logical. First of all, unless you can right now prove that she "fudged" anything -- and I want to see quotes, page numbers, etc. --- you are engaging in slander, period. Secondly, simply because there are some things unsupported in a work by NO MEANS "calls the whole work into question". That is absolute 100% bonafide rubbish. What it means is that you are then obligated to carefully review the book and not throw the baby out with the bathwater, sorting out what is of value and what is not. Rejecting anything wholesale is absurd.

Get a copy of Ancient Goddesses. Mine is loaned out at the moment, or I'd give them to you. Several of the authors there re-examine her field notes against her published findings and those against the records of others working the same dig. All too often she ignored male figurines, thereby inflating the percentages of female figurines in total. She also had a tendency to include figures that were ambiguous in the female 'column'. I believe it was Silverfire Darkmoon who has also pointed out that she had a tendency to see goddess symbols everywhere and on everything. That is not slander, that is acknowledging errors in the work. When I get it back, I'll give you the figures if you can't find a copy.

What she did in later years also highlights a problem with 'authorities', credentials, and a matter of trust. She was a very well respected archeaologist who did a great deal of work widely accepted as very good. However, in later years she pulled a Linus Pauling. Just as I don't accept Pauling's work on the worth of vitamin C unquestioningly, I don't accept her later work unquestioningly on evidence for a pan European Mother Goddess cult even though both were intelligent scientists. Vitamin C does help in some things, there were goddess cults across Europe. I don't agree with either of their end conclusions.

And you are missing a distinction here. Religion/spirituality is not open to objective proof of any kind by anyone. Plus, I have no quarrel with the Mother Goddess cult as a religious belief, although I don't share it. I lived through the time when it first became popular and I have some good ideas of WHY is was so popular with women. If you like it, go for it.

BUT.

You accuse 'academic scholars' of having agendas and biases when they disagree with your beliefs. Gimbutas fell prey to the same thing--both 'sides' are human, eh? And when objective evidence such as archeaological findings are offered as proof of a theory that evidence is open for debate. I find her evidence lacking as proof, particularly when it's obvious that she saw things no one else trained in the same field saw in the same dig--and that she stuffed the ballot box. Since I am not trained in archeology nor can I re-examine her finds, nor can I travel to the dig sites I have to accept the word of those who did--both Gimbutas and others working in the field. Credentials again, remember? Further reading has exposed holes in her larger theory. Since I have to accept her work on trust, finding that trust somewhat misplaced leaves me reluctant to accept the rest of it on trust. Which is pretty much what it comes down to in the end, unless a reader is trained in every discipline involved, yes?


And a personal irritation. I was in grad school in the mid-70's in science. It was hard enough for female scientists to be taken seriously without things like what Gimbutats did happening. Personally, I felt she let down 'our side' with this.


Maggie

[*Rasenna*]

Get a copy of Ancient Goddesses.

Well, this book can be summed up with a comment made by Joseph Campbell:

"We have no writing from this pre-literate age and no knowledge, consequently, of its myths or rites. It is therefore not unusual for extremely well-trained archeaologists to pretend that they cannot imagine what services the numerous female figurines might have rendered to the households for which they were designed."

This seems to apply to some anthropologists as well.

Here's the full quote from Campbell, which illustrates that themes are evolutionary and that one need only the follow the trail backwards or forwards to discover connections along the evolving path. In other words a mother goddess doesn't just pop up suddenly; instead she evolves from primitive beliefs into religious themes. Not seeing her clearly in one period does not mean she didn't exist, and we can recover her from the past by looking at what themes follow in subsequent periods.

The quote:

"However, no one can speak with certainty of the social and religious place of woman in this period, for the meager evidence of the bones and coarse pottery shards reveals nothing of her lot. One has to read back, hypothetically, from the evidence of the following millennium (4500-3500 B.C.), when a multitude of female figurines appear among the potsherds. These suggest that the obvious analogy of woman's life-giving and nourishing powers with those of the earth must already have led man to associate fertile womanhood with an idea of the motherhood of nature. We have no writing from this pre-literate age and no knowledge, consequently, of its myths or rites. It is therefore not unusual for extremely well-trained archeaologists to pretend that they cannot imagine what services the numerous female figurines might have rendered to the households for which they were designed. However, we know well enough what the services of such images were in the periods immediately following - and what they have remained to the present day."

[Maggie]

Well, this book can be summed up with a comment made by Joseph Campbell:

"We have no writing from this pre-literate age and no knowledge, consequently, of its myths or rites. It is therefore not unusual for extremely well-trained archeaologists to pretend that they cannot imagine what services the numerous female figurines might have rendered to the households for which they were designed."

Are you arguing for or against the pan-European Mother Goddess cult as laid out by Gimbutas? Your quote here seems to support those who do not and explain why others don't find her evidence compelling. You notice his use of the words "pretend" and "imagine"? No one is disputing the existence of goddess cults connected to fertility. That is a long way from the existance of a pan-European Mother Goddess cult.



Here's the full quote from Campbell, which illustrates that themes are evolutionary and that one need only the follow the trail backwards or forwards to discover connections along the evolving path. In other words a mother goddess doesn't just pop up suddenly; instead she evolves from primitive beliefs into religious themes. Not seeing her clearly in one period does not mean she didn't exist, and we can recover her from the past by looking at what themes follow in subsequent periods.

Actually, it doesn't. It just says we have no evidence one way or the other, that there are *probably* some universal themes apparent and that it's reasonable to assume from later evidence that some people did have some version of a connection between the earth and female fertility in earlier times.

Maggie

[*Rasenna*]

Are you arguing for or against the pan-European Mother Goddess cult as laid out by Gimbutas?

I'm arguing that there are valid alternative views, and that those who try and discredit the main thrust of the argument Gimbutas raises are pretending not to know certain things that should be obvious. They want to stay safely in the box, and they fear stating things that cannot be proven by current methodology (so as not to draw the kind of criticism that Gimbutas is subjected to). Gimbutas had the courage to step outside of the box and think in new ways with an expanded vision. Historically speaking, people like this often get nailed to a cross.

Your quote here seems to support those who do not and explain why others don't find her evidence compelling.

Well, looks like we're interpreting the same information differently, which ironically goes to the core of the argument itself.

You notice his use of the words "pretend" and "imagine"?

Yep, and he's saying that they're ignoring the obvious. He's certainly not addressing the Gimbutas faction.

It just says we have no evidence one way or the other

Precisely, which demonstrates that both Gimbutas and her critics are in the same boat.

[Maggie]

I'm arguing that there are valid alternative views, and that those who try and discredit the main thrust of the argument Gimbutas raises are pretending not to know certain things that should be obvious. They want to stay safely in the box, and they fear stating things that cannot be proven by current methodology (so as not to draw the kind of criticism that Gimbutas is subjected to). Gimbutas had the courage to step outside of the box and think in new ways with an expanded vision. Historically speaking, people like this often get nailed to a cross.

Ad hominem arguements. Because I don't accept the entirety of Gimbutas' pan European Great Goddess theory I am insisting on staying safely in the box? How about the evidence so far presented for me to examine simply doesn't meet my standards of proof? And she was using her dig evidence to support her theory. That means her evidence is open for debate, both pro and con. That's the way science works and that's the playing field she was using. Therefore, it is not "nailing her to a cross" to insist that she meet to the standards and criteria used in the field SHE chose to use.

The arguement is not over whether there is evidence of goddess cults connecting women and fertility. As far as I know that isn't in question. But Gimutas tried to extend that further and prove the existance of a pan European unified Mother Goddess cult. That is the part in question.

Yep, and he's saying that they're ignoring the obvious. He's certainly not addressing the Gimbutas faction.

I don't agree.



Precisely, which demonstrates that both Gimbutas and her critics are in the same boat.

Yes. And so why are academic scholars to be disbelieved for the same possibility that we are to overlook in Gimbutas? I turn a skeptical eye on Gimbutas' work for the same reason other posters detest certain authors. Gimbutas has an agenda.

Maggie

[David19]

I don't think that there was ever a 'Mother Goddess' that was worshipped by all European witches, if there were witches, they would have had different gods (Italian witches would have had Diana, probably), and various others, they would have viewed the gods as individual beings, not as 'aspects' of one great goddess or god.

[*Rasenna*]

Ad hominem arguements. Because I don't accept the entirety of Gimbutas' pan European Great Goddess theory I am insisting on staying safely in the box?

I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to scholars in the book you referred to.

I don't agree.

Well knock me over with a feather! ;)

Gimbutas has an agenda.

They all have an agenda, and for some it's to take down anyone who suggests that the positions they've built their careers on might be wrong.

[Maggie]

They all have an agenda, and for some it's to take down anyone who suggests that the positions they've built their careers on might be wrong.


No--and THIS is the crux of the problem.

All authors could be said to have an agenda of one kind or another and independant scholars are just as likely to have one as academic scholars. Being critical of claims made and the evidence presented applies equally. So that's a wash, yes?

For some it's to take down anyone who suggests that positions they've build their careers on might be wrong.

This sentence is somewhat ambiguous, but given the previous posts I am guessing that authors like Hutton or those in Ancient Goddesses are being accused of having an agenda to "take down" anyone like Gimbutas who undermines what they--meaning Hutton et al--have built their careers on. Not because those authors disagree with Gimbutas on the evidence she has presented but as a matter of protecting their careers. Is this your meaning?


Maggie

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I have the deLancre illustration before me now. The three throned figures are described as follows:
"A. Satan preaching in the likeness of a goat, seated in a golden chair. one of this five horns is lighted to kindle all the candles and fires of the sabbat.
B. The Queen of the sabbat, crowned, at his right; one less favoured at his left.
C. in front of the throne, a witch presents a child she has abducted."
(the witch appears to be acting in concert with a demon, or possibly handing the child over to the demon)
The Queen of the Sabbat does not seem to appear very frequently in witch-lore. Murray gives six cases in 'Witch-Cult', five Scottish and one from Salem.
Murray also states:
"The position of the chief woman in the cult is still somehwat obscure. Professor Pearson sees, in her the Mother-Goddess worshipped chiefly by women. This is very probable, but at the same time when the cult was recorded the worship of the male deity appears to have superseded that of the female, and it is only on very rare occasions that the God appears in female form to recieve the homage of the worshippers. As a general rule the woman's position, when divine, is that of the familiar or substitute for the male god. there remains, however, the curious fact that the chief woman was often identified with the Queen of Faerie [as is suggested by the Scottish trials Murray cites - Silverfire], or the Elfin Queen as she is sometimes called."
She also says that 'Diana' is the feminine form of Dianus, which makes me ask that, if the name of the deity of the witches was Diana, why then does she not say Dianus is the masculine form of Diana?
I must also stress (again) that much of what Murray used as evidence *was taken under duress of torture* and she decided that a few records were normative across Europe, AND NORTH AMERICA. She got the idea of thirteen-member covens *from one Scottish trial record* and on the basis of that, declared that there was a coven in Salem! She suggests that the full-blown European Sabbat happened in England, when most English records feature posessions and single witches; and in this area relied on Matthew Hopkins.
And once again - DIVINE KING IN ENGLAND. The suggestion that Jeanne d'Arc, Gilles de Rais, and THOMAS A BECKETT, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, were pagan sacrifices is absurd.
And yeah, I could have used a better phrase than 'Gardner was all over Murray', as it presents a rather odd image :P
You do realize, Carla, that you're saying Gardnerians know what actually happened with Murray, when it has been repeatedly stated that Hutton himself is a Gardnerian and would therefore be in a better place to know than any of us?

[Greyharp]

I'm arguing that there are valid alternative views, and that those who try and discredit the main thrust of the argument Gimbutas raises are pretending not to know certain things that should be obvious. They want to stay safely in the box, and they fear stating things that cannot be proven by current methodology (so as not to draw the kind of criticism that Gimbutas is subjected to). Gimbutas had the courage to step outside of the box and think in new ways with an expanded vision. Historically speaking, people like this often get nailed to a cross.

I agree with Maggie, I thought the quote you provided was quite illogical and shot itself in the foot.


"However, no one can speak with certainty of the social and religious place of woman in this period, for the meager evidence of the bones and coarse pottery shards reveals nothing of her lot. One has to read back, hypothetically, from the evidence of the following millennium (4500-3500 B.C.), when a multitude of female figurines appear among the potsherds. These suggest that the obvious analogy of woman's life-giving and nourishing powers with those of the earth must already have led man to associate fertile womanhood with an idea of the motherhood of nature. We have no writing from this pre-literate age and no knowledge, consequently, of its myths or rites. It is therefore not unusual for extremely well-trained archeaologists to pretend that they cannot imagine what services the numerous female figurines might have rendered to the households for which they were designed. However, we know well enough what the services of such images were in the periods immediately following - and what they have remained to the present day."(emphasis mine)

The author demonstrates that the "meagre" amount of evidence results in "no knowledge", and that those interpreting the data can only "imagine" what "might have" been. He then criticises "extremely well-trained archeaologists" because they won't then make assumptions. The author justifies this by saying they should base their assumptions on the more numerous evidence of a later period in history, which "we know well enough", and yet it is a time once again when written records were extremely lacking, and in many areas non-existant. So going by his previous logic, we still should largely only be able to make assumptions concerning the available evidence.

History books are filled with "facts" based on the assumptions of historians and archaelogists, who seem to feel obliged to fill books with theory, passed off as the truth, seemingly because they are unable to admit that they just don't know. Celtic history is a perfect example of this. You could fill a small library alone with just books on Celtic history, yet how much of this is based on what we actually know? As none of the pagan Celts left us written records (in Celtic languages), we can only go by the writings of their enemies the Romans (which are very dubious), a few Greek references (which were not always accurate, a fact easily demonstrated), some from Romanised Celts, and lots from Christian Celtic monks, and we all know what Christians do when writing about the pagan beliefs of a people, don't we boys and girls? What we are left with is no written records from the people themself, dubious written records from others, and hard physical evidence that is open to interpretation. (An excavated post hole cannot tell you what the structure actually looked like, or what it was actually used for, it can only allow you to make assumptions). And yet, there are thousands of books filled with "facts" about Celtic history, religion and society.

There is nothing wrong with making assumptions, if we are honest enough to admit, that is what they are. Hypothesis that is clarified by this kind of honesty is less likely to end up with the author "nailed to a cross". I think we need more archaeologists and historians who have the guts to stand up and say "we don't know and can only guess". I don't see this as a fault Rasenna, I see it as a sadly lacking virtue.

[Carla O'Harris]

The arguement is not over whether there is evidence of goddess cults connecting women and fertility. As far as I know that isn't in question. But Gimutas tried to extend that further and prove the existance of a pan European unified Mother Goddess cult. That is the part in question.


Nope, the skepticism is TOTAL. No fertility, no goddesses. Some ridiculous people argue they were porno. That's the kind of assault we're facing.

[Carla O'Harris]

I think we need more archaeologists and historians who have the guts to stand up and say "we don't know and can only guess".

Aw come on, that's all this newer weak breed of scholar is willing to do, so you've got plenty of it. Unimaginative, unvisionary, unwilling to step out and take risks. Why? Because of the eviscerating and feeding frenzy upon scholars who actually show some imagination and are willing to state the obvious. You want to make a sceptical footnote to it? Fine. But don't stand in the way of people who are willing to state the obvious. I thought Campbell's quote was to the point.

Don't get me wrong. Sit around and debate whether oxygen exists all you want. I'll be breathing.

[Maggie]

Nope, the skepticism is TOTAL. No fertility, no goddesses. Some ridiculous people argue they were porno. That's the kind of assault we're facing.

Who's that skeptical? That they say there were no goddesses cults at all, nor any association of goddesses and fertility? That's quite a stretch in the other direction.


Maggie

[Carla O'Harris]

no goddesses, just little clay representations of females. Yep, it's pretty total. They want to erase history. Of course, they can't, because the figures are from the ground and real, so they just interpret them out of existence. And that's all this really is anyway, a bunch of scholars telling us what we have the right to interpret and what we don't. And then having the audacity to tell us that their interpretation is "real" history. Well, bleep that. I can interpret documents as well as the next person, and I don't need some specialist to tell me what is real and what is not. Walks like a duck, looks like a duck ... it's a damn duck, feel free to add skeptical footnotes "just to be sure".

Edited by Xentor due to foul language.

[Maggie]

no goddesses, just little clay representations of females. Yep, it's pretty total. They want to erase history. Of course, they can't, because the figures are from the ground and real, so they just interpret them out of existence. And that's all this really is anyway, a bunch of scholars telling us what we have the right to interpret and what we don't. And then having the audacity to tell us that their interpretation is "real" history. Well, bleep that. I can interpret documents as well as the next person, and I don't need some specialist to tell me what is real and what is not. Walks like a duck, looks like a duck ... it's a damn duck, feel free to add skeptical footnotes "just to be sure".

Who is this "they", Carla?

And no, they're not telling you anything about what you want to interpret. You are as free to reject their conclusions as they are to reject yours.


And if this is your opinion of the whole business, why waste so much energy pouring vitriol on them? You've just said their work makes no difference to you.

Maggie

[Greyharp]

You want to make a sceptical footnote to it? Fine. But don't stand in the way of people who are willing to state the obvious. I thought Campbell's quote was to the point.

Obvious to who? To you, yes, we know that. Campbell's point is fine if we're talking about honest hypothesis, but if it's an excuse to dribble unsubstantiated or tenuous crap, then that's a sad state of affairs. And speaking of which:


Don't get me wrong. Sit around and debate whether oxygen exists all you want. I'll be breathing.

This statement speaks for itself.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Trying to erase history? 'That's the kind of assault we're facing'? What the hell? How can you prove that the figurines are goddesses, as opposed to statues of a famous queen, or eroticism, or dolls, or just random artwork? Humans have proven time and time again that they are fond of statues of nude women, but stating that every naked woman in art is a goddess is ridiculous. Ditch the persecution complex!
Maggie is completely right, if you're free to dismiss our claims and the claims of respected historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists, then we are completely free to dismiss yours. It works both ways.
You aren't saying anything. You're just sounding like a conspiracy theorist, and IGNORING WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING, as you have been doing from the start. If you won't respond to our questions in a sensible fashion, how can we give credence to your claims?

[Vinny Mirabella]

I agree with Maggie, I thought the quote you provided was quite illogical and shot itself in the foot.

I agree with Rasenna, looks to me like Campbell's being critical of professionals in their fields who pretend not to know what an object is just because there's no conclusive evidence.

IGNORING WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING, as you have been doing from the start. If you won't respond to our questions in a sensible fashion, how can we give credence to your claims?

This is pretty funny stuff, both sides accusing each other of the same behavior that each is guilty of. Okay, any chance of getting back to the subject of Gardner now, or do we have to continue watching you people make faces in the mirror?

[Greyharp]

I agree with Rasenna, looks to me like Campbell's being critical of professionals in their fields who pretend not to know what an object is just because there's no conclusive evidence.

Thanks Vinny, but I stand by my original statement:

Campbell's point is fine if we're talking about honest hypothesis, but if it's an excuse to dribble unsubstantiated or tenuous crap, then that's a sad state of affairs.

Sadly we see a lot of this passed off as scholarship (with or without credentials). When there isn't enough evidence to constitute proof, but we're then told that the truth is obvious, well, surely what is obvious here is that we're talking about opinion and interpretation, which is hardly the same thing as fact.


This is pretty funny stuff, both sides accusing each other of the same behavior that each is guilty of. Okay, any chance of getting back to the subject of Gardner now, or do we have to continue watching you people make faces in the mirror?

Yes it is funny stuff isn't it Vinny. I particularly enjoyed your previous contribution to this thread, an exchange with Minerva Mind back on pages 17 - 19, great stuff. :lol:

As for getting back to the subject of Gardner, back on page 22 of this thread, I tried to do just that by listing some quotes by Gardner from his book "Witchcraft Today", but no one seemed to feel inclined to comment:

I guess it's time some of Gardner's statements were recorded in this thread. These are from various chapters in his book "Witchcraft Today":

Quote:
My own impression is that it (witchcraft in Celtic Britain) was thought of as the religion of the pre-Celtic peoples with their own gods...But slowly Celtic ideas crept in. I think the myth of the goddess is clearly such. That is, a minor Celtic goddess crept in and by her beauty and sweetness wrought great changes in a primitive hunter's cult"

As Christianity came in witchcraft had to be concealed. Under the Saxons it continued in out-of-the-way communities, or was driven to Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. Many of the cult members, together with remnants of the earlier inhabitants, would live in places to which the conquering race did not go. After a few generations of scanty food a naturally smaller race, probably intermarrying with Picts and pygmy tribes, would become even smaller in comparison with the big well-fed Saxons, so they become the 'Little People', the Pixies - a word surely derived from the Picts.

The witches do no know the origin of their cult. My own theory is, as I have said before, that it is a Stone Age cult of the matriarchal times...

I had always believed that witches belonged to an independent Stone Age Cult whose rites were a mixture of superstition and reality and had no connection with any other system. But during my stay in New Orleans...I noticed some suspicious resemblances which made me think that Voodoo was not soley African in origin but had been compounded in America out of European witchcraft and African mythology and when I visited the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii I realised the great resemblance to the cult. Apparently these people were using the witches' processes.

Witchcraft almost everywhere has two main derivatives to which its other formative influences became attached; the fertility cults persisting from the indigenous inhabitants of any area, and the latter 'magical' practices derived through direct or distorting channels from the centralising Egyptian source. Witchcraft as it emerges into European history and literature represents the old paleolithic fertility cult plus the magical idea and various parodies of contemporary religions.

Unfortunately few periods of history have suited witches...I think in Celtic and pre-Celtic times witches had great scope and used their powers wisely and with restraint. In Rome I think they had too much opposition from conflicting sects, from the Roman character, the mixture of the population and, of course, Christianity, which together with various wars and invasions, put them out of running for a thousand years...In spite of it all, witches linger on...But I think we must say goodbye to the witch. The cult is doomed, I am afraid, partly because of modern conditions, housing shortage, the smallness of modern families, and chiefly by education.


This discussion has mostly left its original theme and moved into areas like, what constitutes valid evidence, a reasonable argument, scholarly validity and such things. Although nothing directly to do with Gardner, discussing these issues is valuable in that it does help us to understand where each other is coming from.

That one side says "there is simply not enough evidence to prove the Gardner/Murray hypothesis"; the other side saying "proof is unreasonable and impossible, but the evidence is so bleeding obvious"; and the first side retorting "that is just opinion" - we have reached a stalemate. Of course neither side believes this to be true, they simply believe the opposition has failed to "prove" their case. But when it comes down to differing opinions based on the same evidence, it is a stalemate.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

One more aside before the return to the subject at hand.
Why is it that scholars like Rose and Hutton are not good sources, because they're academic and therefore prejudiced, but Gimbutas and Murray were equally academic? Just wondering.
BTW, 'A Razor for a Goat' is very, very interesting, if you've not read it.
Isn't it funny that Gardner thought in 'Witchcraft Today' that his Wica was doomed? I think he'd be pretty happy to see how widespread his ideas have become - admittedly mixed up, sometimes watered down, occasionally his very ideals are thrown out the window, but I daresay on the whole he'd be pretty damn impressed. After the way his witches got dragged through the gutter press, he must have been terribly worried.

[Vinny Mirabella]

Thanks Vinny, but I stand by my original statement

Not a problem, each to their own.

Yes it is funny stuff isn't it Vinny. I particularly enjoyed your previous contribution to this thread, an exchange with Minerva Mind back on pages 17 - 19, great stuff. :lol:

Yeah, in retrospect I guess it was. I'm not very tolerant of that type of thing, and I guess I'm sometimes too blunt. My past experiences have taught me how short life can be, and so I don't like to see it wasted. Some hills are worth dying on, but most are best left behind. Watching other people sort that one out here has been very entertaining. But I'm hoping to see people move on now.

[Carla O'Harris]

Who is this "they", Carla?

And no, they're not telling you anything about what you want to interpret. You are as free to reject their conclusions as they are to reject yours.


And if this is your opinion of the whole business, why waste so much energy pouring vitriol on them? You've just said their work makes no difference to you.

Maggie

I've already made it very clear why it makes a difference : there's a WAR going on, and I intend to be part of winning it. There is an all-out assault on very important concepts established a long time ago, and it is not based on honest scholarship but biased polemics, by a group with an agenda. They are trying to fill the encyclopedias with biased lies that make us have to defend every subpoint we make. It does make a difference, and must be countered.

[Carla O'Harris]

Trying to erase history? 'That's the kind of assault we're facing'? What the hell? How can you prove that the figurines are goddesses, as opposed to statues of a famous queen, or eroticism, or dolls, or just random artwork? Humans have proven time and time again that they are fond of statues of nude women, but stating that every naked woman in art is a goddess is ridiculous. Ditch the persecution complex!
Maggie is completely right, if you're free to dismiss our claims and the claims of respected historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists, then we are completely free to dismiss yours. It works both ways.
You aren't saying anything. You're just sounding like a conspiracy theorist, and IGNORING WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING, as you have been doing from the start. If you won't respond to our questions in a sensible fashion, how can we give credence to your claims?

Look Junior, you might take a hint and learn some respect. I have not ignored what everyone has said. I have responded to a great deal, but there is a great deal of material to respond to. Rest assured that I listen to what everyone says, and some of it will be responded to later rather than sooner, but it will all be answered. Some questions require greater research projects or thought than instant answers.

You can throw around "conspiracy theorist" all you want, but in a polemical war it is logical to theorize about oppositional forces.

As far as your question goes, one can establish probabilities on the basis of context and later practices.

[Carla O'Harris]

Sadly we see a lot of this passed off as scholarship (with or without credentials). When there isn't enough evidence to constitute proof, but we're then told that the truth is obvious, well, surely what is obvious here is that we're talking about opinion and interpretation, which is hardly the same thing as fact.


Data is mere blur without interpretation. The whole point is that there is nothing wrong with a scholar engaging in imagination, speculation, and interpretation of data based on their great knowledge-base. A scholar should speculate on probabilities, regardless of whether things can absolutely be known or not. It's a shill to demand absolute certainty when we live in a world where probabilities are the lived space of experience.

That one side says "there is simply not enough evidence to prove the Gardner/Murray hypothesis"; the other side saying "proof is unreasonable and impossible, but the evidence is so bleeding obvious"; and the first side retorting "that is just opinion" - we have reached a stalemate. Of course neither side believes this to be true, they simply believe the opposition has failed to "prove" their case. But when it comes down to differing opinions based on the same evidence, it is a stalemate.

This is not completely accurate. Proof in a field of probabilities has been thrown out, and what has been argued is that the evidence is powerful enough to argue for the probability of something within the ballpark of the Murray theory, albeit with modifications and nuances.

[Carla O'Harris]

Quote:
Don't get me wrong. Sit around and debate whether oxygen exists all you want. I'll be breathing.


This statement speaks for itself.


Indeed it does, because no matter what one speculates the air is -- phlogiston, oxygen, prana, spirits, etc. -- the practical process of breathing continues, and therefore there is fact as well as probability surrounding fact that remains. Skeptical speculation is all fine and good as a mental exercise, but it should not hinder the layout of probabilities ; nor should the elucidation of the strongest possibility be marginalized as being equal to all other probabilities simply because it is not certain. The strongest possibility, for example, through context, etc., is that these were goddess figurines, and once that has been stated, one may fairly list as an aside the other speculations.

[Greyharp]

Data is mere blur without interpretation. The whole point is that there is nothing wrong with a scholar engaging in imagination, speculation, and interpretation of data based on their great knowledge-base. A scholar should speculate on probabilities, regardless of whether things can absolutely be known or not. It's a shill to demand absolute certainty when we live in a world where probabilities are the lived space of experience.

Blimey Carla, we actually agree on something, I think you are quite correct in what you are saying here. My beef is not that scholars "speculate on probabilities", which I agree is important, but that "imagination, speculation, and interpretation" is not labelled as such, and is instead presented as definitive fact - and yes, something authors on both sides of the debate are guilty of.


...what has been argued is that the evidence is powerful enough to argue for the probability of something within the ballpark of the Murray theory, albeit with modifications and nuances.

Which is great, as long as there is the honesty to admit the "probability" part of the equation. No one cares if other people have opinions, it's when we're told one opinion is absolute truth and anything else is a lie that people start getting their backs up.

[Maggie]

I've already made it very clear why it makes a difference : there's a WAR going on, and I intend to be part of winning it. There is an all-out assault on very important concepts established a long time ago, and it is not based on honest scholarship but biased polemics, by a group with an agenda. They are trying to fill the encyclopedias with biased lies that make us have to defend every subpoint we make. It does make a difference, and must be countered.

A war. What you're talking about isn't any different than what goes in any other academic discipline --in fact the kind of 'war' you're talking about goes on all the time vis a vis other religions. And actually what you're saying here doesn't sound much different than what I've heard before from too many religious leaders of all stripes.


What you are really saying here is that any scholar who does not agree with your interpretation via Gimutas et al is out to destroy your beliefs and on purpose at that and you are therefore obligated to fight back in some fashion.

All this discussion has done for me is reinforce my opinion that scholarship cannot be used to prove the "truth" of any religion. And that it's almost inevitable that when it's tried the distinction between debating the evidence and debating the "religious truth" disappears.

Maggie

[Carla O'Harris]

And my point is that it is logical if someone is devoted to something to give credit to the position of advocacy, and help to build the best case one can.

I have also made a coherent argument to consider the differentiation of various denominations of Wiccan practice who in their diversity make even Gardnerianism a contested site, through differentiating those who fall into the Huttonite-Kellyite Camp, and those who fall into a Gardnerian/Neo-Murrayite Camp. I think this is a useful differentiation for practical association and organizing, so that people can engage in discussions in which a certain number of assumptions can be taken for granted in the sense that they are established rather than having to be constantly fought for. Simply put, the Huttonites can go play their game, and let the Neo-Murrayites play their game, and then can come together for various interactions or debates, without assuming they are all part of the same thing.

[Elderbush]

Carla, you seem to be fighting the same type of war that the Creationists are fighting against the science community. One wants their religious history, as taken directly from their bible, taught as truth to students instead of evolution theory and the other wants religious history kept where they think it belongs, with the study of religion instead of science.

I don't think that their is any way to win this war or any way to convince either side that they are wrong.

[Carla O'Harris]

Blimey Carla, we actually agree on something, I think you are quite correct in what you are saying here. My beef is not that scholars "speculate on probabilities", which I agree is important, but that "imagination, speculation, and interpretation" is not labelled as such, and is instead presented as definitive fact - and yes, something authors on both sides of the debate are guilty of.



Everything is a matter of judgement and arbitration, which involves weighing things. So long as the strongest weight is not made equivalent to weaker weightings, I have no problem with this. But in saying this, I am obviously giving great weight and significance to the strongest weight. Simply because certainty is not available is no reason to denigrate the strength of the knowledge that we do have.

But you're right. For example, there is a website out there that has two stories about Odin collected from the Netherlands. I have tried contacting the author of this website to determine if the original text he derived this from actually said "Odin", or whether he substituted "Odin" for "God". Even if the latter is true, it could be coherently argued that "Odin" was the original, but unless this is footnoted, an injustice has been done. Unfortunately, this particular author doesn't seem to be too concerned about it, and thus, a piece of information that could be very useful and very interesting if it were confirmed in one way or another has to remain as "interesting possibility" without even the possibility at this point, pending further investigation, of even weighing its probability. You wouldn't see me using that information as a major point in an argument, therefore ; at best, as an aside, with the necessary caveats.

It seems to me that there are two kinds of skepticism, which we might call "soft" and "hard" skepticism, corresponding roughly to the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Soft skepticism simply "doesn't know" and admits a number of "unanswered questions", reserving the right to continue asking questions and reserve judgement until some of those questions become more clear. Hard skepticism asserts that it "does know", and has specifically knowledge of the negation of the thesis in question. It is antithetical and devoted to the antithesis. Sometimes hard skepticism will pose as soft skepticism, but when pushed, reveals its true colors.

In relationship between thesis and antithesis, there may be a range or spectrum of soft skepticism that places one either more or less within the orbits of each, or equidistant, but it is obvious that a hard skepticism in relation to a thesis automatically places one in the camp of the antithesis. Some soft skepticism remains mainly within the orbit of the antithesis, but still open to being convinced otherwise. Even this can be more or less within the antithesis camp : for some it might be formally true, but practically very difficult, as there is basically an internal commitment to the antithesis ; while others really might be more open even though their commitment lies more with the antithesis. And then on the other hand, there are people within the orbit of the thesis itself who can exhibit soft skepticism while remaining essentially committed to the thesis. To me, this latter represents those with whom the greatest amount of creative dialogue is possible, but I do not rule out the potential of creative dialogue with the soft skeptics on the edge of the antithetical orbital who remain open-minded. What I dispute is that in order for there to be validity to the thesis (or a synthesis beyond both) that I must convince those entrenched in the camp of the antithesis, because there is commitment there against being convinced. Obviously if we had access to anything like a time machine -- let's say a machine that couldn't transport us back in time but could go back and collect living data from the living stream of some of the time periods in dispute -- then we could potentially collect enough data to be able to make a case for proof even to those entrenched in the antithesis, which some people have claimed as a necessary "scientific" standard of proof, but this is only valid for situations where the data still remains open. The existing situation in this field is that there is a limited amount of very real evidence, some of which is mostly available, others of which may become more available with translations and more accessible publishing, others of which may be eked out of existing work with methodologies that allow previously muted facts to come to the surface.

I have said that I have been surprised the numbers of people who are fairly well entrenched within the antithesis, rather than being either equidistantly "open-minded", or within the camp of the thesis but with reservations.

I think it is a dangerous trend that the antithesis is now being vaulted as the historical truth, and while it is possible that people like Hutton are "friendly" to Wicca -- although I'll leave that question in reserve for the moment -- there are others who are not friendly who are most happy to take up that antithesis as the truth, as a means of undermining Wiccan history, and therefore taking away some of its foundation. What is sad and dishonest is that a polemic within the Wiccan community has presented itself to the outside world as the truth and history, rather than maintaining some sort of sets of agreements and reporting the rest as contested sites.

[Elderbush]

I don't think that anything undermines the religion of Wicca since I do not feel that Wicca rest on the history of Wicca as reported by Gardner. The history can be proved or disproved and what does it matter? That's history, not religion.

Why don't we discuss Gardner's comments about Wicca from his books that Greyhawk listed instead?

[Carla O'Harris]

Carla, you seem to be fighting the same type of war that the Creationists are fighting against the science community. One wants their religious history, as taken directly from their bible, taught as truth to students instead of evolution theory and the other wants religious history kept where they think it belongs, with the study of religion instead of science.

I don't think that their is any way to win this war or any way to convince either side that they are wrong.


This is a slanderous charge against me, and I resent it. The only truth to this statement is if you compare me to the evolutionists rather than the creationists ; and in my book, I will demonstrate precisely how the antithesis is more analogous to the creationists than any scientific appraisal of evidence.

The more valid comparison would be how Christians for example, want their beginnings represented in history books. If the hardcore "Jesus Never Existed" at all thesis (a thesis which is, I think, very well argued and worthy of review) were presented as "History" with a capital "H" and the only historical truth, they'd have every right to be pissed and to contest it. An objective, encyclopedic entry on that history would present different theories, argue possible merits and dismerits, and survey contested sites, with appropriate references and relevant quotes, and allow the reader to make a choice. This would only be honest as there are many honest scholars who believe that Jesus was an actual historical figure who existed, despite the fact that one is able to make a very, very strong case that he didn't even ever exist at all. I leave this as a contested site historically -- I am not trying to argue it either way. But each side in this debate has strong argument which should be listened to. If the thesis is "Jesus was an actual historical figure", it would be absolutely inappropriate for the antithesis to be presented as any kind of objective history. It would be appropriate for both thesis and antithesis to be presented, as well as any attempts at synthesis, with all their variations. Needless to say, excepting those who are Gnostic, those within the Christian camp are of necessity going to engage in advocacy for the thesis in some form or another. At the extreme end will be literalist fundamentalists who will claim that everything the Bible says about Jesus is not only the literal truth, but God's own word as well. Others will argue that there is a "historical core" to Jesus and his ministry that must be distinguished from later mythic accretions. John Dominic Crossan would fall into this camp, as would many respected historians of the Jesus Seminar, who, despite the fulminations of the fundamentalist, remain respectably within the orbit of the thesis. It would of course be remiss in an encylopedic entry on history in this regard to neglect the work of, say, Earl Doherty, who needless to say represents the antithesis arguing that there never was a historical Jesus but that Jesus was entirely an artifact of various Jewish religious communities combined with the lore of pagan saviour-gods in an environment highly syncretic of Judaism and Hellenism. In this regard, Doherty has the right to be heard, and should be heard, but if Dohertyites were to seize the "Truth" with a capital "T" or "History" with a capital "H", they would be being dishonest because they would not be representing the Conversation as it is actually happening with great contestation.

What has happened within the Wiccan community, primarily through the effort of Kelly and Hutton, is that an antithesis has developed, allying itself with antithetical forces outside the community within the academic world, and has performed two fundamentally unreasonable acts :

1. It has represented the antithesis as the history of the community and movement, without making clear its polemical basis. This is fundamental dishonesty. We've seen it on this very thread.

2. It has demanded that the community itself accept the antithesis as the history of the community. This is comparable to a coterie of Christians within a non-Gnostic Church demanding that the Church teach Doherty's antithesis as the history of the Church. This absurd and extreme demand goes much further than merely wanting the right to have discussions about Doherty's points within a Church setting. It is demanding that the Church teach both internally and externally the antithesis as the official history, calling the thesis "mythic" or "religious" truth. But it is the very history itself that is in question!! And while Doherty and others of his kind are well, well-deserving of a good and honest hearing, as well as a place in the documentation of the debate, they are not the only historians making credible, valid historical points. It would therefore be incredibly dishonest to declare that only the antithesis has historical value, relegating the thesis to some kind of "mythic" status. Obviously whether Jesus resurrected is a "mythic" question of faith where historical debate may be less relevant, but whether Jesus ever existed at all is a matter of relevant historical debate, both within and without Christian communities --- and lest anyone think I am summoning this as some sort of marginal extremism, I will repeat that Doherty and others like him are excellent scholars making very good points and deserving of a good hearing.

These are absolutely unreasonable demands.

[Carla O'Harris]

I don't think that anything undermines the religion of Wicca since I do not feel that Wicca rest on the history of Wicca as reported by Gardner. The history can be proved or disproved and what does it matter? That's history, not religion.

Why don't we discuss Gardner's comments about Wicca from his books that Greyhawk listed instead?


Right, that's how you feel, but with all due respect, that's irrelevant because it is a one-sided argument. The proponents of the antithesis all assert that "the history is irrelevant to the religion", even though they are completely gung-ho at denying its history entirely. The point is that I and others like me do not feel that "the history is irrelevant to the religion", and in fact feel that the history is centrally relevant to the religion. That is precisely why this is being argued.

I certainly don't mean to denigrate Christians who believe there never was a historical Jesus, but still find some kind of spiritual truth in it, but they most certainly at the very least fall into some kind of Gnostic orbit, and from the standpoints of most non-Gnostic Christians definitely undermine their religion if they assert that "Jesus never existed" as some kind of historical truth.

Likewise, asserting that there "never were" religious witches even somewhat akin to what Murray and Gardner uncovered and revealed does undermine the religion. You may disagree, but I'm asserting it, and that's why we're arguing it. I am arguing that not only is it a fundamental distortion of history, but an injury to the faith as well. I have asserted that it is fundamentally insulting to those who were devoted to this faith, and who at times put themselves at risk for this faith, to assert that they never existed and that their faith is simply the result of an overactive modern imagination.

So like it or not, there is a real debate going on here, with real stakes, in which the relevant parties are obviously very interested and passionate.

[Elderbush]

I was talking about Creationists, but you might have gotten mixed up.

Creationists want their version of the history of the world taught to students outside of a religious setting as taken from their Bible, even though there is very limited scientific proof for it. If you only want to teach Gardner's version of the history of Wicca within a religious setting (to your students) then you would be different from them. No one has a problem with someone teaching Gardner's history to students of the religion, it is when you tackle the non-religious venue and want them to teach it or accept it, that there are problems.

[Carla O'Harris]

Actually, Gardner's points are very relevant here, because Gardner shows himself as :

1. A proponent of the thesis, who
2. Also exhibits the soft skepticism of an open mind.

Gardner absolutely asserted the historical existence of the witch-cult he was initiated into. He asserts that at the very least it predates the Napoleonic era, and very probably traces to the Elizabethan. The latter is consistent with his other assertion that it represents a survival of the Murray-cult, which Murray originally had only traced to the late seventeenth century. Beyond these assertions, Gardner believes that these historical realities rest upon a religious superimposition or stratification that traces back at least to the Mystery Religions and possibly to the Neolithic, with the implications that a core was preserved throughout the process of syncretism and superimposition. However, these latter beliefs of Gardner he explores much more tentatively, with a very open mind. He never said anything of the sort like "These exact words and liturgical rites were practiced by late Stone Age people", which people in the antithetical camp react to as a straw man that never was.

[Carla O'Harris]

I was talking about Creationists, but you might have gotten mixed up.

Creationists want their version of the history of the world taught to students outside of a religious setting as taken from their Bible, even though there is very limited scientific proof for it. If you only want to teach Gardner's version of the history of Wicca within a religious setting (to your students) then you would be different from them. No one has a problem with someone teaching Gardner's history to students of the religion, it is when you tackle the non-religious venue and want them to teach it or accept it, that there are problems.

I haven't gotten mixed up at all. I corrected your analogy.

Creationists want their version of Cosmology taught as History. The correct analogy would be to teach the Underworld as actual Geography, or to demand that the Myth of the Goddess be taught as actual history, the beginning of all witches. For example, if I were to assert that the witch mentioned in the Myth of the Goddess was actually the first historical witch from which all other witches in history descend. Or if I were to require history classes (either within or without the Wiccan community) to teach the cosmology of Aradia as historical truth --- that all witches trace from an actual, historical incarnation of Diana and Lucifer. That is akin to what the Creationists are trying to do.

I corrected your analogy, because the analogous argument would be that Christians would like Jesus taught as an actual historical figure, and that they would contest his being taught as never existing --- and I think they would be right in doing so even though I think a greater case can be made for hard skepticism in that regard than there is for the history of religious Wicca.

[Elderbush]

Right, that's how you feel, but with all due respect, that's irrelevant because it is a one-sided argument. The proponents of the antithesis all assert that "the history is irrelevant to the religion", even though they are completely gung-ho at denying its history entirely. The point is that I and others like me do not feel that "the history is irrelevant to the religion", and in fact feel that the history is centrally relevant to the religion. That is precisely why this is being argued.

I certainly don't mean to denigrate Christians who believe there never was a historical Jesus, but still find some kind of spiritual truth in it, but they most certainly at the very least fall into some kind of Gnostic orbit, and from the standpoints of most non-Gnostic Christians definitely undermine their religion if they assert that "Jesus never existed" as some kind of historical truth.

Likewise, asserting that there "never were" religious witches even somewhat akin to what Murray and Gardner uncovered and revealed does undermine the religion. You may disagree, but I'm asserting it, and that's why we're arguing it. I am arguing that not only is it a fundamental distortion of history, but an injury to the faith as well. I have asserted that it is fundamentally insulting to those who were devoted to this faith, and who at times put themselves at risk for this faith, to assert that they never existed and that their faith is simply the result of an overactive modern imagination.

So like it or not, there is a real debate going on here, with real stakes, in which the relevant parties are obviously very interested and passionate.

Yes, and within the religion you can teach it as factual as you like to your own students.

In the accademic venue, or secular school venue, they base what is taught on history as accepted by the majority of the accademic community with proof to back it up. We can all point to mistakes in history books and changing ideas, which is a good thing. As more proof is discovered and more members of accademia accept a different history of Wicca then the books in the secular world will change.

Oh, and I don't believe that anyone here as ever said that there "never were" religious witches. You must have been misunderstanding all along if you feel there is someone here who says that.

[Elderbush]

I stand by my analogy. You are trying to teach religous history in the secular world. Creationists want to teach religious history in the secular world.

[Carla O'Harris]

It's akin to asserting historically, rather than polemically, that "the idea that there ever was a Jesus, either as a man or as an embodiment of a set of principles anything akin to what is taught in the New Testament has been discredited". Note "discredited", not "disputed". To say that it has been "disputed" would be correct ; to say that it has been discredited would be incorrect.

It would be akin to saying, "Second and third century Christians actually invented the figure of Jesus, projecting into his mouth an amalgam of their contemporary beliefs as well as some remnants of tradition" and then asserting that anything other than this is mythic history of faith akin to Creationism. That's an absurd and extreme argument.

[Carla O'Harris]

I stand by my analogy. You are trying to teach religous history in the secular world. Creationists want to teach religious history in the secular world.

No, you're trying to teach religious history in the secular world. You are trying to teach a polemical antithesis as the truth. This is dishonest.

I am saying that there is a strong, evidential historical footing for the thesis that Wicca represents a survival of a historical religion with continuity into antiquity, and that secular history ought to represent this strong theory without slander or innuendo.

I'm not making the weak argument that "within an in-group one can assert this as some kind of religious truth". I am making the strong argument that the Garderian-Murrayite Thesis, while not proven with any finality in the secular court, has a strong footing in the history of the real world, and therefore ought to be taken seriously as serious history. Within a secular context that does not make it literally true nor represent it as representing some kind of unanimous or anywhere close to unanimous consensus. It does represent it as an authentic, valid, well-argued school of historical thought, and even if it remain a minority school of thought, should not be mistreated by those holding the reins of majority consensus in dishonest, slanderous ways, making the entire argument amongst other things, political, which it always has been.

[Carla O'Harris]

In the accademic venue, or secular school venue, they base what is taught on history as accepted by the majority of the accademic community with proof to back it up. We can all point to mistakes in history books and changing ideas, which is a good thing. As more proof is discovered and more members of accademia accept a different history of Wicca then the books in the secular world will change.

Oh, and I don't believe that anyone here as ever said that there "never were" religious witches. You must have been misunderstanding all along if you feel there is someone here who says that.

Ok, first of all, to teach what is "accepted by the majority" is to assert the ridiculous proposition that "truth is democratic". We'll take it as axiomatic that a scientific history should base itself on those who argue "with proof to back it up", but that does not mean that one "takes a vote" and then presents the majoritarian opinion as truth. There are minority rights even within the scholastic community, and for the sake of truth ought to be well-represented in a fair and balanced way without slander or marginalization. Obviously in a situation without unanimous consent, it would be dishonest to present either the majoritarian or the minority views as approaching anything close to unanimity. In a situation of active dissent, historiography requires an honest presentation, without prejudice, of the conflicting views. It represents bullying and unfair tactics for a majority to present its views as the truth.

Secondly, it seems that a lot of people think I am "misunderstanding" things, when in fact I'm noting the range of opinion. In fact the denial of religious witches has been asserted, on this very list, although you in particular may not deny it. Similarly, in the argument about Gimbutas (which I am gathering information about to be able to speak to more thoroughly), while not everyone denies that the figurines are goddesses, that position has been argued, so I am not misunderstanding anything. But if you'd like to debate your particular position relative to "religious witches", please present your viewpoint so we can discuss it.

[Elderbush]

I don't think that there is strong historical evidence and neither does the majority of accademics at this point in time seem to be swayed. I think that your evidence can be interpreted in a different manner than you do. They only way you are going to have it taken as serious history is to provide proofs and logic that can hold up to historical review - this has been pointed out.

It can be taught in the secular world as a religious theory at this point, without much convincing historical evidence. But your way will NOT GET TAUGHT in the secular world as anything more than a religious slant on history, like the Creationists have on history, unless you play the accademic game by the accademic game rules and get your religous theory accepted in the secular world as historically accurate. They aren't being mean to you or any other religious faction.

[Elderbush]

Show me a quote from someone on this thread that says there were never any religious witches in the history of mankind. That was your statement. Back it up with evidence.

Majority rule does not mean that the minority opinion cannot be true, it just means that the majority think they are wrong given the evidence at that time. New evidence comes to light and opinions change and history books get rewritten with the new material. Why do all differing opinions have to be included in what is taught or even taken seriously when the evidence for them is scanty at best and very much open to other interpretations? This is if we are talking history books.

Where do you want to be taken seriously?

Ed to add your exact words: Likewise, asserting that there "never were" religious witches

[Nantonos]

It would be akin to saying, "Second and third century Christians actually invented the figure of Jesus, projecting into his mouth an amalgam of their contemporary beliefs as well as some remnants of tradition"

Well, now that you mention it ... thats pretty much what the followers of Paul did.

[Carla O'Harris]

Well, now that you mention it ... thats pretty much what the followers of Paul did.

No, that is a theory on what the followers of Paul did. It is certainly a theory with strong argument to back it up, and ought, therefore, to be included in a survey of theories about the topic. But it is by no mean uncontested.

[Carla O'Harris]

I don't think that there is strong historical evidence and neither does the majority of accademics at this point in time seem to be swayed. I think that your evidence can be interpreted in a different manner than you do. They only way you are going to have it taken as serious history is to provide proofs and logic that can hold up to historical review - this has been pointed out.

It can be taught in the secular world as a religious theory at this point, without much convincing historical evidence. But your way will NOT GET TAUGHT in the secular world as anything more than a religious slant on history, like the Creationists have on history, unless you play the accademic game by the accademic game rules and get your religous theory accepted in the secular world as historically accurate. They aren't being mean to you or any other religious faction.

First of all, you're wrong. I know it's a polite way to start a discussion, but it's true. There are academics who teach the validity of Ginzburg and Henningsen, for example, who both affirm that there is a core of valid historical truth to Murray. There are academics who teach the validity of Gimbutas. So telling me that my way "will not get taught" is on its face wrong. Since it is on its face wrong, it's certainly misleading to suggest that this tendency cannot amplify and become greater.

And again, you are comparing me to Creationists when I have already demonstrated the inapplicability of your analogy. You can feel free to keep asserting it if you like, but it will continue to be inapplicable. Feel free to come up with a more accurate analogy --- perhaps something akin to the one I replaced your inapplicable analogy with.

unless you play the accademic game by the accademic game rules

Would those rules be submitting to the epistemological democracy of the "the majority of accademics"? I won't submit to that. On the other hand, I will :

1. Present well-reasoned arguments, based on
2. Rigorous, well-documented evidence stemming from reputable sources.

They aren't being mean to you or any other religious faction.

In a class on Cosmology, it would be inappropriate to omit mention of the Creationists as one school of cosmological thought amongst others ; one could also argue within the same class for the inclusion of the Aradia cosmology. But in a class on biology, Creationism is not relevant. In a class on history, it is relevant to mention the school of historical thought that asserts that Jesus was an actual historical figure, and in fact, it would be remiss to not mention this. It would be remiss academically, and it would also be unjust to the relevant religious bodies. I take it this is what you mean by "mean".


I think that your evidence can be interpreted in a different manner than you do.

Well, surprise surprise, it can also be interpreted in a different manner than that held by the conformity of "the majority of academics" at this point in time. Strangely, though, they don't admit that nor are honest about it. Sure sounds like "the tyranny of the majority" to me.

[*Rasenna*]

I am saying that there is a strong, evidential historical footing for the thesis that Wicca represents a survival of a historical religion with continuity into antiquity, and that secular history ought to represent this strong theory without slander or innuendo.

What's the old saying - "There's the way things should be, and the way things are."

Note this thread for example. First the allegation was made that there is no evidence for the survivalist theme. So we presented lots of evidence from various sources. What we presented was then categorized as unconvincing, inconclusive, illogical, weak, irrelevant, and conspiratorial. To my memory, there was a complete absence of remarks like “interesting” or “intriguing” - nor was there any reply intended to flesh out the possibilities. What we’ve seen here is just a dismissive attitude.

The tactics now seem aimed at keeping the discussion away from the evidence itself (the quoted sources and their possible meanings) and has instead turned to trying to portray the presenters in a unfavorable light. This again, is dismissive of the evidence. Since you guys can't make the bits of evidence go away you want to make the people with the evidence appear like buffoons. It's an old tactic, and we see it used in politics all the time.

[Elderbush]

Still waiting Carla for you to back up with evidence that people are saying here on this thread that there never were any religious witches.

I had to read both Murray and Chariots of the Gods in my anthopology classes. They were not taught as truth, they were taught as excersises in recognizing psuedoscience and bad research. Just because one discusses debunked authors or theories that have not held up over time, or discuss what some people might currently hold as theory, does not mean that those theories are respected. There is much value in teaching what not to do and using blatant and not so obvious examples, and explaining how theories have changed (and will continue to change) over time.

On one side in this thread: People who think there were witches in the past (might not have much in common with Wiccans today) but no one witch-cult

On the other side: People who think that there was one continuous witch-cult spread over Western Europe that has survived for thousands for years.

That is this topic, correct, and the sides taken?

[Carla O'Harris]

Still waiting Carla for you to back up with evidence that people are saying here on this thread that there never were any religious witches.

I had to read both Murray and Chariots of the Gods in my anthopology classes. They were not taught as truth, they were taught as excersises in recognizing psuedoscience and bad research. Just because one discusses debunked authors or theories that have not held up over time, or discuss what some people might currently hold as theory, does not mean that those theories are respected. There is much value in teaching what not to do and using blatant and not so obvious examples, and explaining how theories have