Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2010 6:27:13 GMT -1
A couple of things I'd like to point out. Stefan's early posts use "Sun/Son" It's a mistake to build a premise around the fact that certain Germanic languages show a similarity between those two words. No other language does that and the early inhabitants of this island certainly had no linguistic connection between the two words. It would seem that the people we are talking about didn't have a religion either. At least not something we would recognize as religion. Archeological evidence as well as folk lore would suggest that each area had "Folk ways" The way in which each community related to the land. For example, the villages that lived at the side of a river. The same river would be viewed differently by the people at the source, beside the rapids, where it is broad and meandering, and by the estuary. Same river but the Gods of the river would be honored differently. Movement from one place to another simply means you have to adopt the ways of the people and land you have moved to. Archeology can only show so much and we will always have the debate as to whether there was ritual sacrifice or ritual execution of criminals or maybe both. We really know little. Guessing is fun but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that in the end, guessing is most of what we do.
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Dec 3, 2010 8:40:26 GMT -1
It would seem that the people we are talking about didn't have a religion either. At least not something we would recognize as religion. Archeological evidence as well as folk lore would suggest that each area had "Folk ways" The way in which each community related to the land. For example, the villages that lived at the side of a river. The same river would be viewed differently by the people at the source, beside the rapids, where it is broad and meandering, and by the estuary. Same river but the Gods of the river would be honored differently. Movement from one place to another simply means you have to adopt the ways of the people and land you have moved to. How is this not something we would not recognise as a religion? So far, across the globe and throughout recorded history, humans have been remarkably consistent in practising something immediately recognisable as "religion". During the late 19th and early 20th century there was a popular consensus among academics that "primitive man" also had "primitive religions", which were based primarily around meteological and astronomical phenomena. And blood, of course. Plenty of blood. The more "advanced" religions of the civilised peoples were seen as a natural evolution, more complex and representing a higher rung on the ladder of Progress. It is within this paradigm that works such as The Golden Bough, The White Goddess and virtually anything by Murray were written, and unfortunately these works still inform the popular perception of prehistoric religious thought- including works of "popular mythology" like Grigsby's. Subsequent research and investigation into what contemporary hunter-gatherers actually believe, however, has shown much of this theory to be utter bunk. Rather, "primitive" cultures have been shown to have a complex conception of the supernatural, which they relate to by a variety of ritual actions: all of which sounds rather like a religion to me. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Dec 3, 2010 19:15:45 GMT -1
Of all the ancient world the architecture of the Wessex culture still remains quite simply staggering, indeed awesome, mind blowing. New Grange in Ireland is even older than the Pyramids. This architecture evidences an extremely sophisticated religion. By the time of the Iron Age, religion has gone back wards. Back to woodland groves and wooden temples. By the Iron Age there is no vision to challenge the shear extravagance of Silbury Hill, the giant chalk ditches of Avebury or the Sonehenge landscape. The Wessex Culture suggests the entire nation was obsessed with religion, to the point were people traveled in homage from far flung nations. Trade was rich and many Greek goods have been found on Neolithic sites in Wiltshire. By the time of the Bronze Age we are trading on a massive scale, at the same time when Stonehenge was still in use. The Druids were uneducated peasants compared to the megalithic builders.
Across the world the more powerful the architecture, the more indulgent the religion. The late Stone Age was also the age of gold. The Neolithic bling in the Dublin museum is jaw dropping. Golden balls on golden chains the size of grapefruit. Gold breast plates the size of dinner trays.
As for the sun/son metaphor, my meaning is as written. The sun equating to our nearest star. The son equating to the son of god. The two are both one and the same. The sun = the son and of course by this I do not mean Jesus Christ but something much, much older. At some point in Stonehenge's use I believe it was Belenus. Christianity has totally plagiarized Pagan theology, this can actually be evidenced through Dionysus and Osiris.
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Dec 3, 2010 20:24:55 GMT -1
This architecture evidences an extremely sophisticated religion. By the time of the Iron Age, religion has gone back wards. Back to woodland groves and wooden temples. By the Iron Age there is no vision to challenge the shear extravagance of Silbury Hill, the giant chalk ditches of Avebury or the Sonehenge landscape. I wouldn't say it went backwards, why spend so much time shifting tons of stones when you could have the same outcome with wood? The iron age hill foughts of south coast are massive with double and more bank and ditches, matching the extravagance of Silbury easily. One thing I have notice about the iron age is they kept life as simple as it could be. No bows and arrows which would take long time to produce. Spears are just as effective and easier to make. Efficiency maximisation
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Dec 3, 2010 21:59:23 GMT -1
The Druids were uneducated peasants compared to the megalithic builders. What? You're judging the complexity and theological sophistication of a religion by its architecture? That's utter rubbish. Different cultures have different priorities and values. They have different estimations of what is an appropriate response to the sacred. Qualitatively, one cannot say that the theological understanding of the Mediaeval cathedral-builders was more sophisticated than that of (say) the Irish monks of half a millenium earlier just because the latter worshipped in rough structures which look like piles of rock. For all the talk of palaeogenetics and how the genetic makeup of Britain has not changed all that significantly since the Neolithic, it is undeniable that the British Iron Age had an entirely different culture to the Bronze Age. The Druids were the inheritors of an Indo-European culture which did not highly value the plastic arts. If your primary religious expression is verbal, why bother lugging boulders some five hundred miles as an adornment?
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 4, 2010 16:37:29 GMT -1
A couple of things I'd like to point out. Stefan's early posts use "Sun/Son" It's a mistake to build a premise around the fact that certain Germanic languages show a similarity between those two words. No other language does that and the early inhabitants of this island certainly had no linguistic connection between the two words. I've never been convinced by the link, but then again, I'm no linguist. It would seem that the people we are talking about didn't have a religion either. At least not something we would recognize as religion. You mean nothing recorded so therefore no structure to relate to? Archeological evidence as well as folk lore would suggest that each area had "Folk ways" The way in which each community related to the land. For example, the villages that lived at the side of a river. The same river would be viewed differently by the people at the source, beside the rapids, where it is broad and meandering, and by the estuary. Same river but the Gods of the river would be honored differently. Movement from one place to another simply means you have to adopt the ways of the people and land you have moved to. Alternatively, expressions of spirituality wasn't fixed as in later examples. Archeology can only show so much and we will always have the debate as to whether there was ritual sacrifice or ritual execution of criminals or maybe both. We really know little. Guessing is fun but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that in the end, guessing is most of what we do. Yes, there is a lot of information that is archaeologically invisible, but archaeology is but one aspect. RR
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Dec 4, 2010 21:43:02 GMT -1
Gaining insight into a culture or it main focus, in this case religion, from architecture is far from rubbish. I'm somewhat incredulous that you deny the advanced techniques or the vision and determination of a culture to accomplish something which can only be described as a wonder of the ancient world.
Something brought down the megalithic culture and Druidry replaced it. Climate change, fear and a very bloody internal conflict. From there things definitely went backwards. A quite grim and dark Iron Age. Or perhaps an enlightened age were the warrior broke the stranglehold of the blood thirsty priest? Certainly something massive and profound took place that completely changed religion. The stone circles were abandoned.
So back to the original thread.
Was farmer based religion usurped by a warrior based religion? Much of the farmer theology remained but now subservient to a warrior elite.
As for bows and slings. This has nothing at all to do with efficiency. Slings are a very poor second best to the bow. This has something to do with taste and with a reason why the bow becomes out of favour? It has something to do with who used to use it and why others are refusing to use it. Logically abandoning the bow makes no sense whatsoever. And as we all know the bow came back with a vengeance. The sling however became a child's toy.
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Dec 5, 2010 2:11:55 GMT -1
Gaining insight into a culture or it main focus, in this case religion, from architecture is far from rubbish. I'm somewhat incredulous that you deny the advanced techniques or the vision and determination of a culture to accomplish something which can only be described as a wonder of the ancient world. I'm not denying that the builders of Stonehenge (or whatever) lacked vision, creativity or whatever other romantic attributes you wish to ascribe to them. What I am disputing is that it is ludicrous to posit that the henge builders were somehow more "sophisticated" than the later Celts simply because they derived religious satisfaction from piling boulders on top of each other. Can you actually substantiate any of this? What's your evidence for it? It'd also be really nice if we could avoid using "druidry" to refer to the Iron Age culture of the British Isles. It's horribly anachronistic. Again, evidence? Indeed, how secure is this dichotomy between "farmer theology" and "warrior theology", and how can you be certain that our pre-Iron Age henge builders espoused the former rather than the latter? Essentially, it boils down to this: religious beliefs are among those things which are invisible to archaeology. We have no idea what these people believed, what language they spoke or even what they called themselves. No idea. Generally, speculations on the nature of neolithic religion tell us far more about the world-view of the one doing the speculating than they do about prehistoric beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Dec 5, 2010 14:00:05 GMT -1
Hear hear Deiniol!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 5, 2010 14:33:34 GMT -1
anyone who has been to maiden castle or cadbury castle know that monumental building didnt end in the noelithic.
another thing to bear in mind is that a warrior class cannot feed themselves and need a farmer class - a much larger group - to make their bread. notions that warrior gods replaced farmer gods is kind of missing the point. it is just that warrior gods are more..... obvious.
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Dec 5, 2010 17:12:02 GMT -1
And a lot easier to tell stories about, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Dec 6, 2010 15:26:02 GMT -1
Sorry guys, some of your thinking seems quite rigid, along with being quite rude. I'm not entirely sure you would use such a stance to my face, not for long anyway.
This Deiniol character, you've really got a mouth on you sunshine.
This post was made on a theological conjecture page for the good reason that its not about proven facts but ideas. I remember this page was created for that very reason, so I thought that was a given.
When you post on these sites you should do so with the foresight that one day you may meet the people your talking to. It may restrain any social ineptness and encourage more respect.
Just because I'm brave enough to share thoughts that are not based on some in vogue historians book does not mean I've just got off the fucking boat. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Do you think I'm posting off the cuff?
This thread could have been very multi layered and created a platform from which people could learn. Conjecture clashing with accepted truths to forge new ground. Rather than romantic attributes as you put it.
Your way behind guy. I know the facts and as limited as they are, I'm now trying to see beyond them.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Dec 6, 2010 16:05:47 GMT -1
Thanks for the big waft of testosterone there, Stefan.
|
|
|
Post by Rion on Dec 6, 2010 16:15:14 GMT -1
Seems to me that all that was said was that your ideas lacked any basis in fact, and seemed to be built almost entirely on your own opinion, and the opinions of this Grigsby fellow. Which is fine, so long as you back it up with evidence to support your conclusions. I think this has been lacking in this thread thus far, frustrating members who feel it necessary in all that we do, and who I'm sure would be just as frank to your face about it.
There's no need for such ad hominem attacks. Brython is all about prompting discussion, but more than that it seems to me that we are all about evidence. You've been invited to give evidence for your conclusions several times in the discussion, and as yet you have not done so.
Theological conjecture means ideas, as you have said, but there must be some support to those ideas or they will just fall over.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 6, 2010 18:13:39 GMT -1
Stefan,
you have spent a night in discussion in roundhouse with several of us and been here long enough to know this isnt OBOD or TDN, we wont sit here nodding sagely, making wise 'hmmmm' noises and generally blow smoke up our arse whilst talking about personal truths.
yes, this section of the site is for theological conjecture, but when you begin making conjecture about the archaeological past it is straying into the world of evidence, facts and precedent. So, when you suggest that iron age Britons were less religious then we will ask for some kind of evidence to back this up. this is how this site has always operated, if it ddidnt and was likel everywhere else i wouldnt still be here.
Deiniol know his stuff, i wish i had met him and Megli several years earlier than i did, as from them i have been introduced to new ideas and concepts which have shaped where i am today. the one thing i dont expect from them is bullshit, and the one thing i do expect is honesty.
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Dec 6, 2010 18:18:31 GMT -1
I see nothing wrong with what Deiniol has said. I'm surprised why your offended, Stefan.
Conjecture is fine, but what of it contradicts archaeological evidence?
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Dec 6, 2010 18:29:43 GMT -1
What evidence are you talking about?
Burial chambers suggestive of sun gods?
Sex with a priestess during sacrifice?
Architecture suggestive of a sophisticated religion?
You know I'm a bit perplexed at this desire for evidence in the rigid manner you seem to need or more to the point demand. Wheres your flexibility regarding wisdom? History, mythology, archeology and folklore do not give us a great deal of insight into ancient religious theology and practice if we do not also allow ourselves to think outside the box.
I remember a while ago bringing to the table the concept of castration. Everyone was frothing at the mouth ranting, wheres the evidence, wheres the evidence? No one seemed to know what the hell I was talking about? No sense of anyone knowing anything about the subject. But plenty of second rate criticism. Which made me ask, am I amongst spiritual children here? Do you really know as much about pagan theology as you claim? Do you not know your creation myths? Do you know nothing of Freud and the basic human fears related to the father, mother, son triad. How expansive is your knowledge? But I was not rude enough to say this at the time.
And here we go again. Actually some very complex and profoundly intelligent observations put into questions to discuss and you put me down like I'm some foolish, romantic air head.
The evidence is massive in the sense of various threads suggestive of a bigger picture. I would need a book to detail it all. I had hoped some of it was ether obvious or at least you might be more familiar with where I'm coming from. Yet I get this grief instead.
As for male testosterone. I made a vow to myself after Flag Fen that my days of being pushed around were over. I've done the violence thing many years ago and it got me nowhere. I did the holy man trip for many years and just got walked over. Now I stand the middle ground, part my own priest, part warrior, fighting my own battles and I will stand up for myself.
I have my fountain of knowledge to share , like you have yours. If what I say baffles you, expand your reading matter...
|
|
|
Post by megli on Dec 6, 2010 18:46:11 GMT -1
As the old phrase goes---I wish I was as confident of anything as you are of everything, Stefan.
OK, let's try this another way.
Let's take ONE of the things you mention above---'sex with priestesses'.
Can you phrase this for us into a brief proposal, as specific to epoch and place as possible, about events that you believe to have occurred in the past? Then we can all have a think about it as something concrete and specific, and how we might be persuaded to accept it as likely and convincing or not.
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Dec 6, 2010 18:53:52 GMT -1
Well, that's the first time I've experienced an overt ad hom on this board. Wot larks.
Stefan, I suggest you take a deep breath, a step back and then carefully re-read what I wrote. At no point did I attack you, and I'll thank you to extend me the same courtesy. It would also be wise not to assume that I lack respect for you just because I disagree with your ideas.
The point that my posts are trying to make has been succinctly put by Lee: "when you begin making conjecture about the archaeological past it is straying into the world of evidence, facts and precedent." To take your most recent post, we should remember that your three examples are not necessarily evidence backing up your point of view. Your interpretation might well be very flawed, and there is no way of proving or disproving this.
Reconstructionists, in general, have an excellent rule: everything that is UPG should be marked as such. It's one worth following, even if you're not of a reconstructionist bent yourself.
|
|