h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's a dangerous assumption that the presence of a caste system in India and in Ireland implies any direct connection. For starters, you say yourself that the Brahmins are the aristocratic intelligensia, while the Celtic society (and I use that term advisedly, because there really wasn't _a_ Celtic society, but rather a bunch of societies which, looking back, we call Celtic) had an essentially warrior aristocracy. Moreover, a lot of places have a caste system, but that doesn't mean that they particularly have shared cultural roots.

Also, blood relation should not be taken to imply similar cultures, and vice versa. Culture and genealogy are entirely different things. To take an example, in ancient Egypt, the Egyptians looked down on foreigners as inferior. Their definition of a foreigner was someone with foreign ways. If you lived like an Egyptian, it seems to have been academic where you came from.

I'm not sure of the origins of the word druid, but near as I understand the idea of a widespread order of Druids comes mostly from the Roman writers. In society the 'druids' had a hodge-podge of different roles, by which I mean they numbered among them priestly types (although probably not full-time priests as we might think of them), poets, musicians, healers and so forth, not that they were a gaggle of Renaissance Celts who all did everything.

There's actually very little left in the way of 'pure' Celtic, let alone pre-Celtic, blood left, partly because 'Celtic' was never one blood, anymore than one culture. Moreover, I feel I should point out that the image of marauding Vikings, raping, pillaging and burning everything in sight is totally exaggerated. With the exception of shore raids (mostly on wealthy monasteries and their associated settlements), the Scandinavians tended to do a little mercenary work (often fighting of marauding Vikings), persuade their employer to pay them in land instead of money or grain, and then settle as local fat cats. Then they'd start to assimilate.

Not assimilate the locals into their culture, mind. What the successful Scandinavian settlers did well was the opposite. The Rus came from Sweden to what is now Russia, married locals and in a few generations had practically stopped using Swedish names altogether. Likewise the Norse who settled in northern France (what became Normandy) adopted the French aristocratic system and Gallicised names.

The Prophet
Back on slightly more familiar ground with them Vikings.

Ah, this brings back many a happy hour in the history dept.Actually it's not so much the existance of a caste system that implies indo-european links but the Type of caste system,: Hini Brahmins and Celtic Druids, even reading from the bias of pro roman sources such as ceasar and tacitus , (and bearing in mind the latters tendancy to mix up celtic and germanic tribes)are clearly an intelligensia caste. As an aside, it's linguistic sources that are most valuable in indicating the link between hindu and celtic cultures.....eg the word druid, from drui-vid, vid being a signifier in both sanskrit and urdu, as well as Gaeilge.in other words, "druid" is one of the words traced to an indian language root...also artifacts found in ireland and britain have provided links eg showing figures sitting in buddha-stances, and with stylised symbols common to both cultures. These are just examples, by no means exhaustive.
The presence of pre-celtic peoples in Ireland is proven by both our monuments eg Newgrange predates celt by about 2500 years! but also by dwellings, such as Crannogs and long houses found in lakes and in the mid planes.....these are neolithic and pre-iron age structures.

Right. Arya/Iran/Eire. Philoanthropology does not lie. It was just nice to get another bit of 'evidence'.

The marauding Danes etc. were a *joke*. Though my Viking history is not good, my history/anthropology of the places Vikings went is fairly good. I should have used a . My mistake.

Where did the genes for the red hair/green eyes come from? Anyone? This is not particularly typical of Arya/Iran, though hazel-green does show up in the eyes. Red hair is recessive everywhere else in the world. Just curious.

Thanks for info.

Sara for LeKZ

Red hair, green eyes....well I have the green eyes but L'Oreal is responsible for the hair being an occasional shade of red As far as I know, meaning I have always read/been told, the celts that evolved at the mouth of the danube, were red haired and blue/green eyed and this was unusual at the time, exciting much comment, and lending them the reputation of fierce. I read an article somewhere recently, regarding the newest theory, that the red haired peoples were pre-celtic, neolithic peoples and the celts intermarried with them: in the Danube regions.
Because this redhaired gene is a very strong survivor gene, especially because unusual red haired women were sought after as brides, selective intermarrying allowed the gene not only to survive but to flourish. That's a real potted version of a very scientific theory but i hope, not completely garbled...

I don't know a lot about Wicca and I may be metioning this from an unreliable source and my applogies to anyone if I am but lack of archilogical evidence says nothing. How long has the legend of King Aurther lasted (had any really found Excalibra (spelling?))? Also (I'm not sure which religion this is) the Druids (is it them) didn't write anything down, therefore no evidence to dig up.

Sometime I must read this entire thread! I am utterly interested in old cultures and religions, and cross-influences.

Hi Unmentionable,

In that case, you should probably read the Christmas and Easter thread, too. Be warned: a lot of people were very nasty to Sea in both threads. This is one reason we went and started a civil one. They wanted to burn the witch. It was too obvious.

Sara, for LeKZ

Is it truly wrong to call them Wiccans now if they hadn't then? It's like saying we shouldn't call Homoerectus by such a name, simply because he referred to himself with a sort of guttural grunt.

That's an entirely different situation.

Homo erectus skeletons are from the same animal that lived millions of years ago; they haven't changed.

Wicca, according to the narrative (which I dispute; see above and other related threads), has at the least a great deal.

If you called your car "Homo erectus," wouldn't you object, if nothing else, to the confusion of calling an hominid "Homo erectus"? The fact remains that the two religions (if ever the former existed) are very, very different.

--Cooper

A better analogy: wouldn't you object if you yourself were called "Homo erectus"?

--Cooper

Interesting thread.....

The most probable reason for there being no name for those who term themselves 'wiccans' prior to recent times is that the practitioners were largely illiterate. As was stated in the article, it was the upper classes and 'intelligensia' who initially clung to the tenets of christianity, and indeed christianity has always been a religion of the written word. Pre-christian 'popular' religion was very much a case of handing down the essentials by word of mouth, the lack of any persecution made this possible, however once efforts were made to stamp out such practices valuable 'knowledge' would be lost.

Under the Romans religion was a political tool, as 'Caesar' was a living god, it was essental that to maintain political control, any native religions had to be seen not to be "rapping on the Roman Gods" as it was put. Hence Jesus's "render unto Caesar what is due to Caesar" was not only a call to pay taxes. The Druids in Britain were massacred and virtually stamped out because they would not pay lip service to the idea that their gods were essentially the Roman ones with different names.

The eventual appeal of christianity to Rome was that instead of different temples each recieving different offerings and gifts it could all be confined to 'one church' which could be organised into a bureaucracy. By eventually making it the state religion all the eggs could be put in one basket. The terms 'Vicar' and 'Diocese' were Roman designations that predate christianity. The sticking point for many emperors was that they had to give up the 'living god' position, which eventually evolved into just being head of the church instead. A small price to pay for all that cash.

The idea of christianity has always been 'this is what happened...honest' whereas with all the 'old' religions it was a case of just looking at what was happening around you. Sacrifice was a case of giving something to ensure a 'threefold return', you would sacrifice corn to ensure a good harvest, or the first lamb to ensure the rest would be healthy. With christianity it has always been 'keep sacrificing and reap the rewards in heaven'....or as we say here 'nothing today, but jam tomorrow'.

In Elizabethan times 'witches' was essentially a legalistic term, the common parlance was to refer to them as 'cunning folk' or 'wise woman/man'. The transition from 'cunning' to 'witch' was a case of interpretation, 'witch' implied one who used their skills for 'evil' purposes. Virtually every village would have one person said to be 'cunning' or 'wise', someone who knew some of the 'old ways' whether it be preparing a 'love potion' or calving a difficult birth amongst the livestock or villagers.

Such a position was of course advantageous, an enterprising person could live on their wits recieving goods as payments for services rendered or likely to be needed. The other side of the coin was that you didn't want to get on their bad side, and the only way to escape once you did was to go running to the local priest, tell your sorry tale, embellish it a bit to ensure his help, then sit back and let the church do the rest. Which enevitably involved a trial and a public bonfire. Mostly though the church was content to let these people be, providing they kept a low profile.

I believe that people today have become obsessed with labels, whether it be the clothes they wear or the religion that they profess to following. We live in a culture of 'I am'. The need to identify with a certain style of whatever requires that people have to have an identity whereas in the past people were content to label others as being different.

This I find is the difference between 'wicca' and the 'old ways'. 'Wiccans' appear to feel the need to advertise their beliefs and to keep pointing out 'Hey we're not all bad'. It's popularity is presently due to it being fashionable, TV shows such as 'the craft' and 'Buffy' et al, have made it a cool thing to be right now. Hence the proliferation of 'Magick shops' (Charms R'Us ?) But 0nce the fad has passed, it will sink into obscurity. This is not to say that it will cease to be, as it will continue to be practised 'underground' by people who actually believe in it and who don't feel the need to stand up and say 'I'm wiccan and I'm proud'.

Perhaps I've come over a little cynical about all of this but I generally find that people need something to believe in, our society has managed to kill God and so we look for something else to believe in, something to make it all worthwhile. The prospect of going through all this crap without some form of eternal reward is a daunting prospect.

Have a nice day

This would all work, but:

Xianity was initially a poor-man's religion, because it preaches themes such as abandonment of worldly wealth, "the meek shall inherit the earth", &c. It also appealed to soldiers because of their first-hand knowledge of death and its offer of resurrection (Mithraism was popular among soldiers for the same reason).

And at the time period given for the "old ways", EVERYONE was largely illiterate in Continental Europe. Writing existed there 800 BCE at the earliest. Even into the Roman Empire, and continuing, the whole of the populace was illiterate. Yet we have words for other large groupings, such as tribal names. So why would JUST ONE THING not have a modern name? Perhaps because it didn't exist.

The Druids weren't singled out for their tenacious belief in their own gods; they were singled out because they practiced HUMAN SACRIFICE--whenever possible, of Romans. Xianity and Druidism were the only two religions ever seriously persecuted by the Romans, because each undermined the Roman civil structure in its own way.

The rest I agree with, but my initial point remains: there is no objective proof that the "old ways" ever actually existed, and if they did, they were nothing like modern Wicca.

I'm just going to recommend Prof Ronald Hutton's indepth history of Wicca (he's Pagan-friendly, and doesn't stand for any nonsense when talking about history) 'The Triumph of the Moon', and his incomparable book 'The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain', which is thus far the most indepth survey of seasonal beliefs and customs in Britain (both published by Oxford University Press). Robin Griggs's 'Witches and Neighbours' (ignore the quick dissing of Wiccans in the preface) is a brilliant survey of how witchcraft persecutions actually worked on the continent and in Britain, and explores the moderating effect of the Inquisition as opposed to local lynch mobs; and Emmanuelle Le Roy Ladurie's superb 'Montaillou', which uses Inquisition documents (hoorah for them - they obsessively wrote everything down) which explores how villagers in Languedoc managed to be Cathars whilst believing that they were "good Catholics", because they simply took their priest's word that what they were doing was doctrinally sound.

My own view is that Wicca as a word (Saxon, pron. "witcha", referring to male witch, wicce being the feminine form) and various forms of witchcraft have been around for a very long time. Wicca as a religion in a 20th century innovation, aimed at recapturing Gardner's ideas of what a pre-Christian native religion should be - it is at least as much a product of Christianity as any other religious influence: Gardner's desire to be freed from some of the constraints of Protestant Christianity and social mores while retaining a Romantic acceptability.

I have never seen or been offered a shred of proof that the victims of the witchcraze were practising a seperate religion (some were heretics, some were practising witchcraft, some were genuine Satanists, and some were practising folk customs, but most considered themselves good Christians), never mind a Pagan religion. And I am certainly not convinced that a religion can remain in any way unchanged over a period of centuries - the early Christians would have a fit if they were shown a modern CofE service, for example. People often did practise folk customs, but as Hutton and many others have pointed out, it only takes a few years for a new practise to gain currency as a tradition - he also points out that we create folk practises in order to feel connected to a primal force, to our ancestors, and our communities; if the rituals we create serve the purpose, their modernity or historicity are in many ways completely irrelevent.

As to the idea of an ancient Goddess-culture, the point is that we don't know. Ancient writers, especially the Greeks, had the idea that the world was once matriarchal and innocent; but they believed their own society to be more civilised - it was nostalgia for a Romantic past, on a par with the myth of the 'Noble Savage'. And that nostalgia for an age that may never have been is evident in many antiquarians' and historians' writings. It was evident in the Victorian age, when it was widely accepted that the first religions were feminine-oriented and peaceful, and Gimbutas et al were working from a solid base of accepted theory when they began writing books about a paleolithic Goodess-culture. They didn't make it up out of thin air, they were part of a long tradition of historical thinking. Whether or not that thinking is objectively true we may never know - physical remains can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways, depending on the preconceptions of the interpreter (for an hysterical example of this, see the wonderfully funny spoof archaeology book 'Motel of the Mysteries' by David Macauley, in which archaeologists from the year 4022 attempt to extrapolate 20th century American life from a partially excavated motel. The presumed ritual use of the toilet seat alone is worth it).

But they also did us a valuable service by pointing out just how wide the differences of interpretation had become between "male" and "female" objects (i.e. This male figure wears a crown and is therefore a king/god; this female wears a "headband" and is simply a "female figure"); sexism and cultural baggage, they pointed out, were just as problematic as a dearth of literary sources.

In the end, even with literary sources, extrapolating the beliefs and customs of a whole peoples after centuries is problematic enough, and I'm content to accept that we will never know what our ancient forebears believed.

I wish I was more articulate. A truly eloquent person would have said all of that in 2 or 3 concise paragraphs! Sorry!

Having now read the thread entire, I'm going to point out that as a practising Wiccan I:

a) Do not hold the concept of a matriarchal Mother Goddess-worshipping culture as a central tenet of my beliefs. Neither does any other Wiccan I know; I have bumped into some who have only just got interested in Wicca and have been relying on Llewelyn books and Barbara Walker and Merlin Stone who believe it, but most accept that Wicca is a modern religion and we don't know who believed what in the Paleolithic.

b) Do not feel the need to justify my religious beliefs with the "mines' older than yours" argument. I do believe that Wicca has been strongly influenced by pre-Christian beliefs, as much in terms of Wiccans having researched them and brought them to bear on their practise as in terms of Gardner's attempts to recreate what he believed to be a native pre-Christian religion.

c) Am perfectly happy to accept that my religion began as a mish-mash of ideas and is evolving as we speak. It's what beliefs do.

Further, I would add that making it up as you go along often works surprisingly well. If you've ever been one of 5-800 Pagans (Wiccans, Asatruar, Druids, and many others) creating a ritual within an hour, you'll know that it can be done if you're prepared to play with ritual form and think about things in a slightly different way than usual.

I'm not an academic, and am not even going to try to ccompete with the academics here. I'm just going to do my thing, and hope it all works out.

Oh, as a side note, I do agree that Wicca is LARGELY a white/middle-class/educationally-advantaged phenomenon; however, I do know quite a few Latin/Hispanic, Black, Asian, Samoan, and Native American Wiccans; this diversity may be due to the fact that I live in New Jersey, which is a densely populated state with a relatively diverse ethnic make-up.

And I meant to hit 'preview', not 'post message'. What loon! Anyway, I was going to say that acceptance of the idea that all Goddesses are "aspects" of one overall Mother Goddess is not part of every Wiccan's belief system. I am a polytheist. My deities are discrete entities, thank you very much. I do believe that one deity can "spawn", and that those deities become individuals.

Oh, the Norse didn't bother with an Earth Mother? Try Nerthus for size.

mm,

i agree in a sense that wicca is based on time honored practices, and that which resonates with the heart. Goddess worship is indeed ancient as is magick, pictures, anf figurines of gila-nigs, earth mother statues, and the so called wilendorph mother have been found, magick was used in attracting a successful hunt, it is bleived there were two maain detities, fir prehistoric man, a Goddess of fertility, and god of hunting. Wicca derives from the Anglo and English words Witta, wicce, which is meant to mean Craft of the wise and also to bend and shape. i have written an intersting essay which is on my web page which i will share with, so grab a cup of jo, i hope you find it interesting, disect it if you must, but please it is my heartfelt opinion..


What does this title bring to mind? In the Wicca/witch community there has been discussions, even debates concerning our past, the present and what the Craft holds for the future so with this article i present my views and studies of what these things represent for me, and may also mean for others. We have all heard the term witch, Wicca, but what does it mean to be a witch? Are they simple labels, all do they hold significant meanings? Each meaning holds within it a spark of creativity. For the way of the witch holds many lessons to learn. In the Wicca/Witch community terms are used, separately, but also interchanged. Many call themselves, just witches, to reclaim the once forgotten word. Some simply call themselves Wiccan, to try and get away from the stereotyped version of witches which, the public, and media portray. Others simply use the combination of both terms. It is only when we reclaim the ancient title of witch that it perhaps can be vindicated from the misconceptions. Over the years the craft has spouted into a marvelous pot of traditions, ideas, and as always a celebration of life. We constantly revaluate the terms, and choices we make, individuality incorporating the craft to our individual needs. We look to the past, to find remnants of how our ancestors practiced; for it is truth that there blood is in our own. But is Wicca really old? This too brings around debates. This is more of a yes/no question. Goddess worship has been practiced in many cultures, so we know these roots are archaic. The practice of Magick is also archaic. Witchcraft was an oral tradition as it has been said. Things were not usually written down. One reason could be because of the chance of persecution if written material was found. Also many were unable to read and write. In the past we were stamped devil worshippers, who blighted cattle, flew on broomsticks, and supposedly delighted in weaving our wicked ways. A simple act of healing that did not come from there version of god was evil. Lies fester and rumors spread. It seems almost impossible that the word Witch still exists. But with strong willed individuals the craft still remains alive. Blessed be!

No one knows how Witches of the past really practiced, because we werent there, many would now claim that the knowledge was passed on through families, or the knowledge is in books, that is most certain, but firstly things passed on through generations get distorted, a bit like the game telephone things are lost. To say that a certain trad has gone unchanged for future generations is ingnorant. As for books they are written by people, and as being done they written from that persons perspective,so they cannot be read to lightly, usually the heart can see past fasleness. All things change in the future so has wicca/witchcraft It's an important aspect of life, and nature , and CHANGE. Witches delight in hugging trees, walking barefoot, nothing is wrong with this its claiming back that part of ourlselves lost through technology. People are different and connect to the earth through different ways, whether it's feeling, seeing, or both. To shun those who try to connect to nature is to shun the essence of wicca and/or witchcraft its self, becuase the power of magick also lies in the earth the use of herbs, stones, and gems ect. The legitamy of terms is also questioned whether wicca is a validated term for modern witches today! Before christianity came to europe, who knows what the pre christians religous folk termed themsleves. We termed them pagan, witches ect but these are our labels. To christians a witch was wicked and evil. But if we look closley the word witch comes form these terms: Middle English wicche, from Old English wicca, masculine, wizard & wicce, feminine, witch; akin to Middle High German wicken to bewitch, Old English wigle divination, and perhaps to Old High German. A pagan: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, country dweller, from pagus country district. These terms were labels nothing more today what we name ourselves is not revelant. Wicca is indeed a valudated word from the versions as said above also can be said as witta, or wikka, it was the wittans who advised some kings in decisions. So whether being new term or old, some wish to steer clear of the negative connotions of the word witch so prefer wiccan, other prefer to use both or one or the other. Why fight over such words, there is no power in them unless given, we should be more concerned in what we practice not what we call ourselves. However like in all communities, there was and IS! a few who decide, to diminish respect and reverence, by deliberately causing harm on others, for power, or self gratification. This is most dishonorable. As we know Wicca is a wonderful construction, revival or/and reconstruction on the craft. It is modern witchcraft for a modern world, and that is how it should be. No one knows for sure how our ancestors practiced, We can find artifacts, but we must put together what we have from then and now, and base our conclusions on our finds. But there are also those who have had the craft passed down to them in there family lines. These people also offer us knowledge. What we practice today can differ from what we practiced then. For one sure thing, we have our technology, and also a somewhat guarantee that we will not be burned at the stake. What we do know is that witches are and were empowered, and wise individuals, they were the healers, midwives, and wise ones of that time. It was quite possible that people of the community went to them for advice, before the persecutions.

Today the majority of us, have diverse jobs. Religion to me always seems to bring up a man made construct idea, but then again everything has manmade ideas. We revere, honor, the existence of life. We know that as soon as we leave our stable homes that the word is truly alive; We can all step out of the droll regimented routines, and be enfolded, by the sunlight, taste the rain, and, take sheer pleasure knowing that nature is not one gigantic robot, to be exploited. We live, die and are reborn, only to embrace once more. Thus is the spiral of life. The future holds many things. You never know! Our children’s children might look back, and laugh at our techniques, and our unsavory un-modern technology. But even so there will always be a feeling that they have come home, that they too practice something which some of its roots ebb back into time!
If some one discredits you whatever faith you are, show them ass and tell them to kiss boot heel. LOLOLOL (Just kidding)


blessings,
spiritfire

very interesting thread
i will need to read it in full

Isn't Nerthus Germanic? Frightfully interesting thread, found it only now.

Who would have thought that a thread I started nearly 3 years ago would still be seein life? Wow.

De profundis! I love it when that sort of things happens.