|
Post by Adam on Jan 25, 2010 12:31:16 GMT -1
I'm currently pursuing a long term project related to this which will probably just result in a personal description in a blog post. BUT I thought this article might be of interest to some antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/076/0119/Ant0760119.pdffrom antiquity.ac.uk/ant/076/Ant0760119.htm"Too many ancestors", James Whitley, School of History & Archaeology, Cardiff University in which he challenges the frequent emphasis on and resort to ill-structured concepts of ancestor worship in current British archeological interpretation. Rather well I thought, particularly in reference to his emphasis on a need for more, and clearer, distinctions regarding the concept of ancestor. And generally, I'm interested in peoples' thoughts about ancestor veneration in a Brythonic context. I recall reading about Bronze age mummification practices, for example, but I guess that speaks more of afterlife beliefs than ancestor veneration. Given Whitley's description of what is known worldwide ethnographically, I'm suspecting that there would be unlikely to be any real clues left from pre-roman Britain?
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 25, 2010 15:32:59 GMT -1
I shall have a read of those articles first, Ta
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 26, 2010 12:32:32 GMT -1
I shall have a read of those articles first, Ta Do... I'll be most interested in your take... I was struck by a parallel between the charge sometimes levelled against druidy particularly in terms of vagueness ("I call upon the spirits of this place") and a charge levelled against archeology in this article (as I read it)... "well, it's the ancestors, innit"... a tendency to a non-specific romanticism I'm also most keen to try and drill down to a more specific way of thinking that makes some sort of sense to me experientially... and I think I am going to have to draw on experience from cross cultural studies to do that
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Jan 26, 2010 13:14:36 GMT -1
I was struck by a parallel between the charge sometimes levelled against druidy particularly in terms of vagueness ("I call upon the spirits of this place") and a charge levelled against archeology in this article (as I read it)... "well, it's the ancestors, innit"... a tendency to a non-specific romanticism A similar charge can be brought about how (British) Neopagans of all stripes treat the Ancestors (with a capital A). To use the terminology in Whitley's article, the Ancestors venerated by Pagans appear to be of the Malagasy type, a vague, nebulous mass of dead people that apparently we feel some "connection" to. What I find interesting and not a little ironic is that Druids in particular have a tendency to view those buried in Neolithic tumuli as Ancestors, an idea which would probably have puzzled our actual Celtic, Roman and Saxon forebears as they did not see the same tumulus-dwellers as Ancestors, but aliens. In my experience, this treatment of everyone who's lived in these islands from the present day right back to the Neolithic as one big holistic group of "Ancestors" (excepting the evil invader of your choice- Christians, Romans, Saxons, etc. Oddly few pagans excoriate the Irish for being the evil, culture-destroying invading aliens that they were), is something unique to British paganism, particularly druidry: it doesn't happen in the US- they're just vague about their "European Ancestry". I reckon that this is just a subspecies of the Murray-ite "Neolithic Matriarchal Goddess Religion" theory, shifted to ancestor veneration and aided and abetted by a selective reading of the archaeology.
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 26, 2010 15:11:27 GMT -1
I reckon that this is just a subspecies of the Murray-ite "Neolithic Matriarchal Goddess Religion" theory, . Don't start me off on that one ;D
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 26, 2010 15:14:32 GMT -1
[What I find interesting and not a little ironic is that Druids in particular have a tendency to view those buried in Neolithic tumuli as Ancestors, an idea which would probably have puzzled our actual Celtic, Roman and Saxon forebears as they did not see the same tumulus-dwellers as Ancestors, but aliens. Interesting as I've often pondered this Spot on, Deiniol. The mythical 'all celts together'.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 26, 2010 15:34:32 GMT -1
I take it then deiniol that you have some sympathy with Whitley's critique? It certainly made a lot of sense to me, as does your extension of the parallels in neopaganism.
This is quite a personal issue for me, because the core of my stripped down paganism is on the one hand a mythological exposure to the living nature of manifest existence and on the other, a making sense of the direct experience of a living presence I have come to regard as that of my "ancestors", both at times specific and non-specific (i.e. at times there are specific folk who step forward according to purpose, some of whom I can identify, some not, and at others, there is just a vague, though active, presence). I don't have a direct and consistent experience of Gods, so don't have a Godology, but am striving to a serious and reasonable personal Ancestorology ;D
I could just let things go on as per a natural course, but over the last few years it seems to have become about ways of deepening the relationship and experience
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Jan 26, 2010 16:22:39 GMT -1
I take it then deiniol that you have some sympathy with Whitley's critique? It certainly made a lot of sense to me, as does your extension of the parallels in neopaganism. Definitely. From a religious point of view, I won't say that there's anything neccessarily wrong with "Malagasy-type" ancestor veneration, or that it's somehow inferior to the veneration of named, known individuals in one's genetic lineage. However, I do feel that the "Generic Ancestors" favoured by much of neopaganism is both intellectually and theologically vacuous. To put this into perspective, I believe that ancestor-veneration has to go both ways. A cornerstone of my personal theology is the principle of reciprocity: one of the purposes of sacrifice to me is the building of a reciprocal relationship with the gods. The same applies to ancestor veneration: to me, being dead and probably linked to me genetically doesn't qualify for ancestor-hood. Instead, I expect my ancestors to give me something. Because my personal spiritual practices are an attempt to see the world through the same cultural and religious lens as the pre-Roman, P-Celtic speaking peoples, I count the long-dead people who shared this culture as my ancestors- their gift to me is their culture, in the same way that my dead grandfather's gift to me is the vast store of good sense he exhibited throughout his life. I get something from them, so I feel it encumbent on me to offer them something in return. This idea of reciprocity is also one of cultural continuity. To pick out some of Whitley's examples, it is relevant that the Orthodox Greek peasants of the 19th century did not consider the Classical Hellenes to be their ancestors, and that the Irish considered the tumulus-dwellers not as ancestors, but a people that they supplanted. In both cases, there is a discontinuity between the cultures of the people who came before and those who came after. Similarly, my religious culture is not and cannot be continuous with that of the Neolithic or Bronze Age inhabitants of Britain due to a simple lack of knowledge. They might well be my genetic forebears, but I fail to be "exquisitely inspired" by whatever they believed, because I have no more idea of what they believed than I do the australopithecenes (who, I note, in spite of definitely being our genetic forebears, receive short shrift from those British neopagans who consider Neolithic peoples to be their ancestors. If the Cladh Hallan mummies get to be ancestors, why not Lucy?)
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 26, 2010 17:31:17 GMT -1
Interesting and very accurate piece of thinking. It has struck me that the only ancestors shown to be worthy of any form of early veneration (using this model) would be the ones from the Northern Isles of Scotland, whereas we know they kept the bones in the domestic dwellings to keep the connection (presumably formed from a genetic basis), which suggests that some actions or contributions made by these very same individuals warranted a continuation of relationship. I was also interested in the mention about who may have been buried at "special" sites, Stonehenge et al. The idea that it had to be someone of "high status" always seemed a little strange to me. We know that people on the fringes of society were sometimes feared or classed as being "touched by the Gods". The pragmatist in me suggests that to keep the "specialness" of these sites, may have involved using these very same people, for whom it may have been considered that they were in almost "constant" communication with the Gods. Therefore, it would appear to me that these individuals would be prime targets for burial here (sometimes early, possibly in the form of a sacrifice or even willing), to act as a connection to the local population and also (possibly) to evolve into the role of guardian of the site. I have never been able to conclusively define whether ancestor veneration in earlier times signified spiritual awareness or superstitious fear. I'd like to think the former but fear it may, in most cases, be the latter.
RR
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 26, 2010 18:31:20 GMT -1
To put this into perspective, I believe that ancestor-veneration has to go both ways. A cornerstone of my personal theology is the principle of reciprocity: one of the purposes of sacrifice to me is the building of a reciprocal relationship with the gods. The same applies to ancestor veneration: to me, being dead and probably linked to me genetically doesn't qualify for ancestor-hood. Instead, I expect my ancestors to give me something. Because my personal spiritual practices are an attempt to see the world through the same cultural and religious lens as the pre-Roman, P-Celtic speaking peoples, I count the long-dead people who shared this culture as my ancestors- their gift to me is their culture, in the same way that my dead grandfather's gift to me is the vast store of good sense he exhibited throughout his life. I get something from them, so I feel it encumbent on me to offer them something in return. Me too. I now live in a place that certainly I have no known relatives that ever lived here & so I'm 'building' a relationship with those ancestors, offerings, my own verbal gifts to them etc. I haven't felt unwelcome but notice an acceptance that needs demonstration by me to be worthy of a deeper trust to develope.
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 26, 2010 18:48:25 GMT -1
A slight digression from the thread. I've been in a recent discussion with Teg about DNA & past links.
With a detailed DNA report, could it be argued that, although unnamed, the now known ancestral line could be 'venerated' in a more personal way rather just a blanket term of ALL ancestors??
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 26, 2010 18:52:37 GMT -1
A slight digression from the thread. I've been in a recent discussion with Teg about DNA & past links. With a detailed DNA report, could it be argued that, although unnamed, the now known ancestral line could be 'venerated' in a more personal way rather just a blanket term of ALL ancestors?? Would you be venerating them on a purely genetic basis or would you be concerned about their actions that would warrant this form of action? RR
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 26, 2010 19:00:24 GMT -1
A slight digression from the thread. I've been in a recent discussion with Teg about DNA & past links. With a detailed DNA report, could it be argued that, although unnamed, the now known ancestral line could be 'venerated' in a more personal way rather just a blanket term of ALL ancestors?? Would you be venerating them on a purely genetic basis or would you be concerned about their actions that would warrant this form of action? RR All of the above but much more. It's mainly because of them that I began many years ago to seek both my physical & spiritual connections to these lands. Whatever they did, I'm not ashamed
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Jan 26, 2010 19:04:03 GMT -1
A slight digression from the thread. I've been in a recent discussion with Teg about DNA & past links. With a detailed DNA report, could it be argued that, although unnamed, the now known ancestral line could be 'venerated' in a more personal way rather just a blanket term of ALL ancestors?? From my point of view, I would still think that I don't "know" any of them, so they're no more special to me than any other dead guy. There's no reciprocity there, I'm not gaining from them.
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 26, 2010 19:32:53 GMT -1
All of the above but much more. It's mainly because of them that I began many years ago to seek both my physical & spiritual connections to these lands. Whatever they did, I'm not ashamed Therefore, it is how they choose to interact with you now, as opposed to their actions from previous times, that define your relationship with them. I personally believe that to venerate ancestors upon a genetic basis to be the hardest form of veneration, open to abuse, as you are basing this upon the circumstances of your genetic connection without any prior knowledge of their actions, circumstances or even motives. This is why, IMO, it is sensible to (re)create some form of common form of reference, be that in the form of ritual or study, that allows common terms of reference to be used for both parties. Much like Deiniol's reciprocity, this allows or creates the mechanism for such an exchange of information. It also puts some of the emphasis on these ancestors to also make the effort, thus demonstrating a commitment. However, unlike the vague neo-pagan "do as thou will" strategy, which has always struck me as opening your house door and announcing free entry to all, speaking personally, I prefer to be be a little more selective in my dealings with whom I choose to have some form of relationship with. Of course, defining those terms of reference is the difficult thing, but speaking personally again, I have enough trust in the entities I deal with to concentrate on that which is shown to me instead of wasting time trying to define and recreate the means by which this information arrives. RR
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Jan 26, 2010 20:11:29 GMT -1
From my point of view, I would still think that I don't "know" any of them, so they're no more special to me than any other dead guy. There's no reciprocity there, I'm not gaining from them. I interpret it differently and I guess in part in depends on your perspective on time - time's arrow or something more all encompassing that the relatively few tenses we have in everyday language makes tricky to discuss. Reciprocity? What have they done for you? You wouldn't be here without them - the choices they made the actions they did. I know I'm only stating the bleedin' obvious but familiarity with the apparent mundanity of the bleedin' obvious can breed contempt for it! Your ancestors each survived, procreated and fledged their offspring. The got through that battle, they survived that hard winter - the story of how they acheived that, their physical robustness, intelligence, skills, beliefs, choices and decisions were their gift and legacy to you. Where you were born - integrated over generations of your ancestors decisions, and the possibilities made available to them by the actions of their forebears. Your genetic makeup and appearance - your red hair because great-great.....-great grandad Deiniol quite fancied that Red Haired girl he saw at the fair, and thanks to his talents and his own inherited legacy of physical body, geography and wealth he acquired her hand etc. In my own life everything about my situation is patently as it is every bit as much through their efforts and lives as it is through my own - whether individually worthy of veneration or contempt the inheritance of circumstance they have each individually bequeathed to me makes their voices clearly apparent every day. To regard them as an amorphous mass of anonymous people stripped of their individuality, drives and hopes for their children and their children's children, is to perhaps risk missing a valuable reciprocal relationship (albeit not coincidental in time)of contemporary acknowledgment and historical familial bequest. Does reciprocity have to be coincidental in time? - does reciprocity have to be iterative for it to be the basis of a worthy relationship? P.S. I didn't mean that to sound judgmental or make accusations over the colour of your hair!
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 26, 2010 20:41:58 GMT -1
I'm with Francis on this one, which is very different to the often superficial empty babble found in neo-paganism regarding the ancestors. The relationship is a two way thing & developes over time as mentioned before.
I'm a bushcraft Instructor in my spare time & when I demonstrate & teach for instance the use of the fire drill & bow, I literally see & feel what our ancestors saw. It's that kind of connection I'm refering to also. I have a great respect for them in this regard but not under the fluffy sentimentle dillusion that they all great & wise and never did anything wrong.
On reflection, I think perhaps our personal definition of what 'venerate' means that possibly needs to be made clearer or explored because I think we're all thinking & feeling the same kinda way.
Or am I wrong again ;D
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Jan 26, 2010 21:32:28 GMT -1
Reciprocity? What have they done for you? You wouldn't be here without them - the choices they made the actions they did. That's oddly reminiscent of Edina informing Saffie in Absolutely Fabulous "But I gave you the gift of life, darling!" After a certain point, genetic descent simply becomes meaningless- something recognised by the ancient IE cultures as well. For example, in the Vedic conception of the ancestors, only the previous three generations are considered: once someone from the next generation dies the most senior ancestor pops out of the netherworld and back onto the cycle of rebirth (that's a somewhat simplified account). In later India, progression up the caste system took about three or four generations to go from one caste to the next (IIRC). In ancient Germanic and Celtic cultures (for once we're onto a pan-Celtic concept here), a kin-group was defined as those descending from a single apical ancestor, who was generally three generations previous. Beyond a certain point, these genetic antecedents have not had a direct, enduring impact on me- they just happen to be partly responsible for the black page upon which others have written. Or, let us cast it into analogy form. Last Sunday a customer found me in the bar after work and thanked me for the meal he'd just eaten. Now, would his thanks have been better directed towards Sylvain Bailly, the man who taught Antoine Carême to cook, who in turn first codified French cuisine into a form recognisable in what I studied at college? Alternatively, when an author finishes a book, should he put his collaborators and influences in the acknowledgements, or Charles Babbage's mathematics professor for making possible the computer upon which he wrote it? In my opinion, yes, it does. The iterative nature of reciprocity is the point, to me. A relationship does not rest on a single encounter, it's a start but there has to be further action on both parts for it to be a relationship. In a panoply of Indo-European prayers we see this as a theme underlying the relationship of god to human. Numerous prayers contain phrases like "as I have done for you in the past" and "may you again do as you have done for me before". Relationships are ongoing constant things to my mind at least. As a ginge, I take great offense to your remarks!
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Jan 26, 2010 22:11:52 GMT -1
While there is a good reason to be appreciative of our ancestors, both our immediate genetic forebears and the generality of humans who have created the world, and the knowledge, we inherited, this is not at far as I can see, a reason to venerate them. So why would we venerate ancestors?
If we do so is it not because we feel them to be, in some way, with the gods? This belief has been reported in tribes that engage in ancestor worship, but if pressed could we make any sense of it? If they knew the gods when they were alive, our knowledge of the gods could be said to come from them. But the problem with this is that they can’t actually give us very much. So if, to use Deiniol’s term, we don’t feel any ‘cultural continuity’ with Presbyterians or Methodists even if these were our immediate genetic forbears or the Anglican or Catholic Christians who were their forbears, let alone any of the atheists that will be somewhere in the mix, where does that leave us? Pretty poverty stricken if we are going to rely only on what little we can know about a pagan Brythonic past, however much we may be inclined (as we are) to reclaim that past.
The fact is, our spiritual inheritance, whether we like it or not, is pretty complex and is bound to include imagery from a variety of traditions which also mediate our direct perception of nature and the gods of the land. Then there is language. All sorts of things are embedded in it. Which languages can we understand. Which of those speaks to the soul? Consider the case of the Welsh poet Waldo Williams. When he saw a skeleton of a young girl in the museum at Avebury he wrote a poem which reconstructed her as in some sense an ancestor. The language and imagery available to him to reconstruct her life included Biblical imagery because he was a Christian:
Deeper there was the sky's expanse Its blue bluer because of her The unseen and timeless house the firmer By her being in these hills. (from ‘Geneth Ifanc’ my translation) No lighting of tea-lights or incense. But she does speak to him and fires his imagination. He knows she was a pagan but he imagines her people as the repository of his own values. The poem recounts a deep spiritual experience articulated in a way that accords with his own spiritual practice. Does this count as venerating ‘ancestors’? I think he saw her, rather, as a fellow human being. He didn’t see her religion as different from his, but as her religion, so when “the dark companion” took her she became part of the hills, the same hills that the poet regarded as the “wall of his being” in another poem. But for Waldo Williams I think this young girl was certainly with the gods, though he would not have put it like that.
|
|