|
Post by stefan on Nov 28, 2010 19:49:17 GMT -1
I find myself something of an outsider within the pagan community. When I talk about my faith I struggle to find kindred souls who share a similar need to mine. My need has always been to learn about the religious theology of our ancestors. This has allowed me to understand some of the differences between Neolithic/Bronze Age religion and late Bronze Age/Iron Age religion. I want to try and understand our ancient religion like Christians understand Christianity. The various Christian sects all disagree on certain points but there is a basic framework to their religion. The various deeds of their god, broader religious doctrine etc. Oddly paganism seems to have none of this that seems remotely coherent. Vague attributes but nothing linking gods together? Basically no theology. No big picture.
From my understanding, fleshing this out very simplistically at first. The Neolithic settlers brought with them farming. This was for a long time based around animal husbandry far more than agriculture. Our megalithic builders were BIG meat eaters, large scale pig, sheep and cattle farming was less burdensome than tilling the land. Most inter tribe tension related to cattle raiding but nothing that significant. The first crops were really more for beer than anything else. The religion focused on fertility more and more as crops became more important. However fertility of herds was still very important to the older religion. Religious theology of a vegital castrated/sacrifice, a yearly vegital sun/son king deity. A more prominent mother goddess figure.
With metal comes more sophisticated weapons and we see a real shift in the size of Hill Forts. Iron Age Hill Forts have bigger banks and ditches. The gods become mighty warriors, festival dates change away from the solar hero axis to the harvest seasons. The vegital sun/son becomes a warrior. The 8 fold year is a modern invention. Two separate religions with their own festival cycles. Tribes now fight to own land to grow more crops and also seek to annilate their neighbours. Individual warrior prowess becomes the main focus. No more room for sacred landscapes on a massive scale like Wiltshire or the Wessex Culture. Plus tribes do not integrate so openly. No one roams the sacred landscape like they used to. The warrior god refuses to be sacrificed each year by a priestess and sets up a dynasty to rule to the end of time.
The warrior Gods usurped the farming Gods but retained many of their aspects and practices for agriculture could not be negated. A warrior cult grafted onto an evolving agricultural religious theology.
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Nov 28, 2010 20:27:57 GMT -1
I find myself something of an outsider within the pagan community. When I talk about my faith I struggle to find kindred souls who share a similar need to mine. My need has always been to learn about the religious theology of our ancestors. This has allowed me to understand some of the differences between Neolithic/Bronze Age religion and late Bronze Age/Iron Age religion. I want to try and understand our ancient religion like Christians understand Christianity. The various Christian sects all disagree on certain points but there is a basic framework to their religion. This is an area that interests me also, so much so, that I have created a site to address this... religionofthesoil.com/ The various deeds of their god, broader religious doctrine etc. Oddly paganism seems to have none of this that seems remotely coherent. Vague attributes but nothing linking gods together? Basically no theology. No big picture. From my understanding, fleshing this out very simplistically at first. The Neolithic settlers brought with them farming. This was for a long time based around animal husbandry far more than agriculture. Our megalithic builders were BIG meat eaters, large scale pig, sheep and cattle farming was less burdensome than tilling the land. Isotopic analysis suggests it probably had more to do with the advantages of increasing protein in their diets and the resulting increase in population numbers, signalling a change in survival strategy from the previous marine derived existence. Most inter tribe tension related to cattle raiding but nothing that significant. What makes you assume that? The first crops were really more for beer than anything else. Actually, there's evidence to suggest the first crops were more for ritualistic purposes, though I agree the evidence suggests animal husbandry was probably the earliest form of agriculture. The religion focused on fertility more and more as crops became more important. I believe that fertility came later, the early neolithic shows a strong bias towards the transformation of the dead and this suggests that their "theology" was one that wanted to place their dead, transformed by these processes, into the landscape as a collective ancestry, able to intercede with the landscape on their behalf. However fertility of herds was still very important to the older religion. Religious theology of a vegital castrated/sacrifice, a yearly vegital sun/son king deity. A more prominent mother goddess figure. Again, I'd be interested in any and all examples you may have that demonstrates these early people took an interest in the notion of an individualized deity. The placing of human materials such as bone deposits into Earth banks from the early Neolithic, suggests to me that they believed in a collective ancestry, especially as the bone materials are not from complete individuals, but are from several individuals, suggestive that their identity was not important, but more their transformation into a collective ancestry was the underlying intention. With metal comes more sophisticated weapons and we see a real shift in the size of Hill Forts. Iron Age Hill Forts have bigger banks and ditches. Is it possible that these larger structures had more to do with increases in population numbers? The gods become mighty warriors, festival dates change away from the solar hero axis to the harvest seasons. The vegital sun/son becomes a warrior. The 8 fold year is a modern invention. Two separate religions with their own festival cycles. Tribes now fight to own land to grow more crops and also seek to annilate their neighbours. Individual warrior prowess becomes the main focus. No more room for sacred landscapes on a massive scale like Wiltshire or the Wessex Culture. Plus tribes do not integrate so openly. No one roams the sacred landscape like they used to. The warrior god refuses to be sacrificed each year by a priestess and sets up a dynasty to rule to the end of time. The warrior Gods usurped the farming Gods but retained many of their aspects and practices for agriculture could not be negated. A warrior cult grafted onto an evolving agricultural religious theology. I would suggest that it is equally possible that a warrior cult may have evolved as a direct consequence of the "rewards" on offer by the attainment of agricultural land by aggressive and violent means. RR
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Nov 28, 2010 21:09:00 GMT -1
Re first crops: Yes ritual beer, or soma was very important to the megalithic peoples. Perhaps containing ergot, a transformative experience of their religion.
Re cattle raids: Cattle Raid of Cooley has some very old aspects to ancient culture.
Re individual deity: Yes the collective experience associated to ancestor worship was paramount. Sacrifice of the solar king suggests a scapegoat for the peoples banes, perhaps killed by a priestess whilst in the act of sex. A death of the people for the people...Later the warrior king refused to be sacrificed creating a new layer to the religion and a greater sense of the individual. Burial mounds seem to evidence this, the final stage of the wessex culture seeing out its demise and beyond.
Iron Age forts definately sign of more hostile culture.
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Nov 28, 2010 21:39:37 GMT -1
Re pre Iron Age deity: Burial Chambers also sugest a deified humanised sun/son. Winter Solstice = Death of deity. Light upon a stone at far end of chamber = dead deity. A miracle child is reborn sometimes in a single day or after 3 days. Solstice means 'stand still time'. Imagery of miracle/wonderous child, a baby on a mothers lap. Sun then heads south again and is reborn. Son child or its twin brother often sacrificed in spring and cast down into the underworld. Triumph and warmth of light at start of spring = need for sacrifice and victory over darkness. None of this threatens a collective ancestorial mindset for spirit of tribe/people. Sun/son out there, a percieved visable natural reality. people still as one, a collective mind.
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Nov 29, 2010 9:14:23 GMT -1
You can tell I'm off work with man flu. Too much time on my hands.
You asked me Redraven for more information about an individual Neolithic/Early to Mid Bronze Age Deity.
The burial chamber especially New Grange is very interesting for this study. When I went there I was struck by the feeling it was as much about life as it was death. The passageway guides the final death ray of the sun on winter solstice to a specific stone with a triple spirial that some associate to a mother goddess. This does seem plausable as the whole set up looks like an act of sex between the sun and the earth. The stone cauldrons are also interesting, they felt as much to do with baptism as funnery. I know ancesteral bones were found on them but I could not get rid of this feeling of babies being born in those chambers.
A child born around the time of the winter solstice may have been marked out as sacred. And brought out of the chamber during ritual on Christmas Day when the sun is reborn after its death on the solstice.
These babies may have been percieved as sun kings, to be treated with honour and sacrificed as adults in spring. During the spring ritual the sacrifice is ridden by a priestess with the man on his back. When he orgasms his neck is cut. 9 months later the priestess gives birth to a child around the winter solstice. There may have been a number of chosen ones at any given time, the adult sacrifice from this clutch was chosen from burnt bannock cake type of selection.
Here we see the tribe or its religion appearing to control nature and with no individual power bases of the kind in later Iron Age theology. A goddess could be presumed to be more powerful than a god with this model, or certainly have a great deal of power. The control of life and death no less, a bit like certain spiders. The sacrifices are groomed from ritual conception so the whole tribe does not live in fear of being sacrificed.
Its all a bit dark I know but it does make sense and it is a very powerful doctrine that as I said appears to control the forces of nature making the sacrifice an integral aspect of the sun. The soul or humanised heart of the sun if you will.
Some of this is my conjecture but most of it is not, what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Rion on Nov 29, 2010 9:30:54 GMT -1
These babies may have been percieved as sun kings, to be treated with honour and sacrificed as adults in spring. During the spring ritual the sacrifice is ridden by a priestess with the man on his back. When he orgasms his neck is cut. 9 months later the priestess gives birth to a child around the winter solstice. There may have been a number of chosen ones at any given time, the adult sacrifice from this clutch was chosen from burnt bannock cake type of selection. Some of this is my conjecture but most of it is not, what do you think? It seems to be all conjecture. Sources?
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Nov 29, 2010 18:55:20 GMT -1
These babies may have been percieved as sun kings, to be treated with honour and sacrificed as adults in spring. During the spring ritual the sacrifice is ridden by a priestess with the man on his back. When he orgasms his neck is cut. 9 months later the priestess gives birth to a child around the winter solstice. There may have been a number of chosen ones at any given time, the adult sacrifice from this clutch was chosen from burnt bannock cake type of selection. Some of this is my conjecture but most of it is not, what do you think? It seems to be all conjecture. Sources? I agree with Rion. The remains found in these early monuments are invariably from both sexes and of mixed ages.The scenario you are suggesting would have resulted in the deposited remains being all of a similar age group, displaying similar trauma due to the ritualistic nature you are suggesting and I'm afraid this isn't the case. RR
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Nov 29, 2010 19:03:53 GMT -1
Yes purely theological conjecture, hence posting on this page.
I have been drawn lately to an author called John Grigsby, (Warriors of the Wasteland, Beowulf and Grendal). He has a good background in archeology, mythology and history from the university of Wales Bangor and gives lectures on his theories. I find him quite exciting and ground-breaking. More than any author I know he has endeavored to understand the native British religion.
It is he who describes this sexualized sacrifice. It is depicted across the ancient world, related to the first agricultural religions from Sumeria, Egypt and across to India. Grigsby goes out on a limb to suggest it was practiced here in Britain.
My train of thought focused on there being a logical conclusion for the sex taking place during the sacrifice, namely a baby born of a priestess during a specific ritual. From there I asked a few 'why' questions? And fleshed out the part of the theory above you boxed out.
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Nov 29, 2010 19:17:55 GMT -1
To RR, The sacrificial victims are adults, groomed from childhood from the ritual provided by Grigsby. Where their remains could be is anyones guess? Grigsby does not rule out Bog Bodies in some cases re Ireland and Scandinavia.
We have the evidence from the ancient world from a cylinder seal from Tell Asmar, imagery of Isis mounting Osiris and Kali mounting Shiva. No mention of human remains associated to any of these pictures of ritual behavior but experts accept it took place in the far east.
I would also like to know what evidence Grigsby has for this taking place in Britain. It also features prominently in his Beowulf book for sacrificial practice of the Vanir.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2010 20:05:06 GMT -1
i have found that specific groups will have a shared theology i.e Wiccans or that hearths/covens/groves will have some level of theology and often individuals will have a theology. beyond that, some kind of pan-pagan theology wont exist. shared belief leads to shared theolgy, the disparate groups of people will therefore have none.
i cant help but think your need will go unfulfilled, we know so little about iron age religion let alone bronze and stone age religion that any attempts at a theology is nothing more than a stab in the dark with eyes closed. they simply no longer exist in any discernable fashion.
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Nov 29, 2010 21:02:45 GMT -1
Some evidence is borne out by the same process repeated in other parts of the world, i.e. hunter gatherers evolving into farmers and finally into warring societies. Same struggle and some shared similarities.
As for an agreed theological pan-pagan stance, thats actually the last thing in the world we want. Whilst paganism is fractured its corruption is on the whole is quite harmless compared to the bigger mainstream religions. I have no desire to see paganism empowered in any way whatsoever. No offense to anyone here but most pagans I have met are quite barking mad. Religion seems to do that to people, thank god for atheists lol...
So it is a personal journey and may always be like chasing a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. At at least now as my knowledge grows I am asking more sophisticated questions. Therefore rather than seeking a definative answer which no religion can provide, the journey shifts my perception and enables my mind to expand.
John Grigsby has a web site btw and much of this thread is inspired by his work...
|
|
|
Post by Rion on Nov 30, 2010 9:55:58 GMT -1
Some evidence is borne out by the same process repeated in other parts of the world, i.e. hunter gatherers evolving into farmers and finally into warring societies. Same struggle and some shared similarities. As for an agreed theological pan-pagan stance, thats actually the last thing in the world we want. Whilst paganism is fractured its corruption is on the whole is quite harmless compared to the bigger mainstream religions. I have no desire to see paganism empowered in any way whatsoever. No offense to anyone here but most pagans I have met are quite barking mad. Religion seems to do that to people, thank god for atheists lol... So it is a personal journey and may always be like chasing a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. At at least now as my knowledge grows I am asking more sophisticated questions. Therefore rather than seeking a definitive answer which no religion can provide, the journey shifts my perception and enables my mind to expand. John Grigsby has a web site btw and much of this thread is inspired by his work... In my experience, most people are quite barking mad; whether they are religious or not. I'm not entirely certain about the parallels Grigsby finds between Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European, but I'll give his stuff a read. Thanks for posting the site. Good luck with your pot of gold, it seems even more unattainable than most of what we do here.
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Nov 30, 2010 10:37:16 GMT -1
Religious madness does seem to be a breed unto itself. Every time I see some desperate evangelist in the city telling me Jesus wants to save me, I think religion for them religion seems more of a curse than a blessing. But of course your right, weirdness is on a continuum for us all.
Thanks for you replies, perhaps not such a Brython related topic, so it was kind to indulge me.
A personal theology is always quite attainable, it will evolve naturally and we do meet the odd kindred spirits along the way.
By odd, I mean a few, not that their barking mad lol...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2010 15:02:11 GMT -1
[quote+"redraven"] Actually, there's evidence to suggest the first crops were more for ritualistic purposes, though I agree the evidence suggests animal husbandry was probably the earliest form of agriculture. RR What is the evidence that suggests the first crops were for ritualistic purposes? I'm interested in beer and grain-based alcoholic drinks There's an interesting article here: www.livescience.com/culture/beer-helped-rise-of-civilization-101104.htmlHopefully I've managed to quote properly this time
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 1, 2010 4:52:59 GMT -1
To RR, The sacrificial victims are adults, groomed from childhood from the ritual provided by Grigsby. Where their remains could be is anyones guess? Grigsby does not rule out Bog Bodies in some cases re Ireland and Scandinavia. We have the evidence from the ancient world from a cylinder seal from Tell Asmar, imagery of Isis mounting Osiris and Kali mounting Shiva. No mention of human remains associated to any of these pictures of ritual behavior but experts accept it took place in the far east. I would also like to know what evidence Grigsby has for this taking place in Britain. It also features prominently in his Beowulf book for sacrificial practice of the Vanir. The evidence though, points us to the practices appearing to remove from the remains, their "individuality". If these people were sacrifices as you are suggesting, then only part of the body appears to have been needed. For example, at Fussel's Lodge in Wiltshire, a "complete individual" was exhumed in situ. However, later tests on the bones proved that this "individual" was, in fact, made up from the remains of several individuals which is suggestive of two things. One, that the individuality of the person through their physical remains was altered through the transformation process, altering the condition and presumably the character of the dead when entering the afterlife, pointing to the conception of a collective ancestry and two, this afterlife appears to be inextricably tied up in the medium which houses the transformed remains. Gods and the idea of individual deities places upon the culture using this ideology, the conception of another realm outside the physical. For the early Neolithic, there isn't much evidence to support this. RR
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 1, 2010 5:12:01 GMT -1
Where we have an example of one place being inhabited through the Mesolithic / Neolithic transition, the archaeological evidence is that there are not enough pollen or grain samples to suggest that the volume of cereals was enough to provide the populations with enough food to sustain them and their animals. This is specifically demonstrated at a site in Billown on the Isle of Man. This is backed up by palynological samples taken from the Isle of Arran from an earlier period in time, where this transition appears to have predated the general Mesolithic / Neolithic transition by quite a large period of time. Further, IIRC, the long barrow at Hambleton North shows cereal grains beneath the earliest structural constructions, suggestive that the Barrow was actually built upon an area used for limited cereal production previously, again pointing to a ritualistic use for the grain and not a major food producing area. This would be in keeping with the article you have quoted. RR
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Dec 2, 2010 20:05:30 GMT -1
My understanding of the evolution of the gods primarily looks to the sun, the moon and the earth as deities, then later with the stars we begin to see more sophisticated pantheons evolve, extended families, with more civilized/society concepts attached to them. In time idols were created to represent these gods but originally man did not see himself as separate. I believe when the Celts sacked the Greek temples such as Delphi they laughed at the concept of gods being sculptured and given a precise identity apart/separate from humanity as a whole.
The Neolithic concept of the collective was complicated, the sun was an individual deity but they were also connected to it and at one with it, so were they with the darkness. Their souls I believe had some relationship with the sun. So much of Neolithic architecture suggests this.
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Dec 2, 2010 20:25:36 GMT -1
If Darwin's theory of evolution is right. A theory for the creation of/need for religion, suggests that mankind evolved from an animal state. A human consciousness evolved into being. During that very slow process man was more aware of his animal state than he is now. For periods of the day he would return to this animal state, this oneness without a heightened sense of human consciousness and would just, be... As the individual became more aware of its separate humanness, a yearning grew to return back to the sense of oneness within the original animalistic state of being. This yearning is the core religious impulse.
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Dec 2, 2010 21:51:44 GMT -1
John Grigsby has a web site btw and much of this thread is inspired by his work... Wait, hang on, isn't this the same John Grigsby as worked with Graham "Atlantis" Hancock? I'm not sure that's an entirely reassuring thing.
|
|