|
Post by littleraven on Jan 15, 2008 0:27:25 GMT -1
Red Raven suggested that we need to split what we do into different historical periods.
Whilst I think it essential we are aware of the developments through history, I am not so sure you could work it in this way.
Basically, all of the time periods put us where we are now.
The thing that the major religions seem to have is that they were founded on a message, a timeless message that transcends the ages.
We don't have anything like that, so what is our point of reference?
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Jan 15, 2008 8:07:23 GMT -1
The thing that the major religions seem to have is that they were founded on a message, a timeless message that transcends the ages. We don't have anything like that, so what is our point of reference? Indeed. My personal view is that time is not the one way street presently proposed by mainstream academe, but that increasingly challenged by physicists and mathematicians out on the leading edge. A far more fluid estate. If the Brython Project is to grow then we cannot allow ourselves to be tied to a set time period - the land isn't nor are the gods. The reason we look back so often to the Iron Age and before is that they were the times before the dominance of the middle eastern monotheistic religions. For some reason many unwise pagans look at the last two millennia as some lost cause with nothing of value to offer them. They only see the Church, not the people and the land. If you have read 'The Stations of the Sun' by Ronald Hutton*, then you can see that many of the non-christian folkways of this land continued to exist right into living memory. Just as many folkways were absorbed by the early church and can be seen in many of their festivals and non-Roman traditions. Thus there are things we must consider for inclusion into Brython from every century since the arrival of the missionaries, as well as before. Including Christian traditions and values - oh the horror! Another thread brought up the question of our Ancestors. To me, my ancestors from the last two thousand years are as important and have as much to teach me as those from the millennia before, even though they were ostensibly Christian. Why is their wisdom any less than their forebears - it cannot be. So time is not an issue to the wise. *I don't like his smug conclusions, but there is little wrong with his primary research.
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Jan 15, 2008 8:34:40 GMT -1
Basically, all of the time periods put us where we are now. I think possibly more accurately the history of all the time periods puts us 'how' we are now. For me it is the 'where' that is the key for us. The thing that the major religions seem to have is that they were founded on a message, a timeless message that transcends the ages. We don't have anything like that, so what is our point of reference? I think our point of reference is these Islands. Simple as that. Relationship with the breathing spirit of these temperate, seasonal islands. The "how" is important as well. The history of our unfolding relationship with our islands and each other manifesting what we experience today. But I think by definition the where is primary. It's not so much a timeless message that we have 'received', so much as a recognition of timeless experience of relationship with our lands. (Although I'm not sure it's really timeless- certainly many thousands of years though, perhaps tens of thousands?) One thing we don't seem to have that perhaps sets us apart from many of todays major religions, is an obvious well to draw on for emotions towards our fellow people such as compassion? We have the ideal of honour, and often that would result in the same outward results - but perhaps that is something more centered on self than on other? I think if we were ever in dialogue with people of the worlds major faiths this is something they might wish to question us on?
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Jan 15, 2008 9:54:16 GMT -1
We don't have anything like that, so what is our point of reference? The local landscape the folklore,history and traditions.
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 15, 2008 19:48:37 GMT -1
Ok, whereas I can see the points of view expressed here. you are missing the point as to why I made the suggestion. What I maybe should have suggested was early, middle and late Brythonic periods, possibly with an explanation or definition in the word of law section. This would be for everyone's benefit and by everyone I am referring to the silent majority who view this site. My point about LR,s 2 references, that there could be a thousand years between them, may indeed show a similarity, but for me, an important part in trying to decipher them, is time scale. Surely we want to make this study accessible to everyone and to do this we need to make some of our posts relevant and accessible to others by including what period of time we think certain knowledge, beliefs and attitudes were first thought to have developed. Ask the average man/woman in the street what was the period of time between 400 ad to 1066 ad and they would probably (hopefully) answer the dark ages and where as there may be some of us who would strongly disagree with the general premise of that description, at least it does provide a point of reference for the general population to discuss this and provide them with a base line from which to express opinions.
RR
|
|
|
Post by coedwen on Jan 16, 2008 9:41:40 GMT -1
What I maybe should have suggested was early, middle and late Brythonic periods, possibly with an explanation or definition in the word of law section. Yes I hadn't really thought about how much beliefs might have changed through the brythonic period. I'm only learning about the history of Britain for the first time a the moment. And its very different to what I thought and what most people I know thought. So I think your right when you point out the silent majoriy here or the man in the street need more explanation. I'm not just looking at the iron age and earlier. I see the brythonic time as lasting all the way until the fall of Gwynedd. The christianish times as well. I justify that by saying there was a continuity of tradition until that time of many ideas even if there were some big changes. I know that's biased for where I live and its on this bit of land that my druidry (or whaever ) is done.
|
|
|
Post by Blackbird on Jan 16, 2008 9:46:00 GMT -1
When I set these boards up, I looked around at how other folks had structured their fora. Many groups made the basic mistake of having far too many boards, each dealing with something highly specialised and each having no more than two posts in So I made the decision to keep the boards simple. In the beginning, there was just the intro bit, the OT bit and the serious bit. I do think it would be very interesting to have discussions on different time periods, perhaps looking at the literature (if any) from that period, the archaeology, any personal connections etc. However, I don't think that needs a separate board. I do think it would work very well as the type of 'Virtual Druid Camp' topic that Craig initiated last year. That type of specialist topic is the kind of thing we're hoping to see on the new Brython site, where we'll be encouraging people to choose a topic into which they can look deeply and then share their findings or creation with other members for discussion and comment.
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 16, 2008 15:14:29 GMT -1
Hello BB I don't want a "special" section of the forum for this, what I think would be useful would be a section on the Word of Law section defining the periods of Brythonic history..... For Example: Up to the year 63 ad (the roman invasion, I think) early Brythonic
63 ad to 1066 ad middle brythonic
1066 ad to present day later brythonic These are only suggestions, I am open to better ones if anyone disagrees with these timescales. It would help people to better understand the period of history being discussed at any one time.
RR
|
|
|
Post by Blackbird on Jan 16, 2008 15:42:13 GMT -1
Don't forget that the forum is only one part of the CF site. Over in the articles section, there are already pieces on how we define ourselves, what 'brythonic' means and so forth (and I've got a few more to go up too). Lee covers it all very well with his Baedd Gwyn series of articles Also, it's not that often that we discuss purely historical matters. Generally, the focus is on the Brythonic traditions as we live them today. I do think it will be useful for us to discuss the various historical periods, as it's an interesting topic.
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Jan 16, 2008 15:58:39 GMT -1
63 ad to 1066 ad middle brythonic 1066 ad to present day later brythonic These are only suggestions, I am open to better ones if anyone disagrees with these timescales. It would help people to better understand the period of history being discussed at any one time. RR I would very light-heartedly complain 1284 might be more appropriate than 1066! Just to echo Coedwen's interesting earlier idea. Why do you think just three divisions of time as most useful, and what particularly draws you to those dates as being the most significant- i.e. significant from what point of view; the beliefs/life of the common man, state religion etc.? The early and latter stages of the "later Brythonic" period seem just fantastically different to me? Of were to divide the time in a way that's relevant to our focus here then perhaps we need to emphasis utility over elegance- even if that meant a more cumbersome number of divisions than three, otherwise we might not really have gained much advantage by doing it?
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 16, 2008 19:19:09 GMT -1
Why do you think just three divisions of time as most useful, and what particularly draws you to those dates as being the most significant- i.e. significant from what point of view; the beliefs/life of the common man, state religion etc.? My reason for choosing these dates were that those dates represent times when physical, uninvited intervention occurred in these lands. I am aware also of the physical invasion of the Saxons and Vikings in later times, however, it could be argued that the population, by now, were more aware of the threat of outside intervention than earlier times. Now, I can hear people saying "what about such and such a war" or "what about constitutional changes" etc. Well, those were decisions made by the people who lived in these lands and it could be also argued that they did have, to a greater or lesser extent, some form of input. The Roman invasion was the first well documented invasion that the local population was subjugated to, so, for me, seems a logical start. I use 1066 as it was the last major land invasion, so there you have it, the first documented invasion and the last. I also think that 3 periods will be a start, for now, that would be an easy point of initial reference, working on the "keep it simple" philosophy. RR
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Jan 16, 2008 20:52:53 GMT -1
I use 1066 as it was the last major land invasion, so there you have it, the first documented invasion and the last. I just think that's pretty anglocentric. I do think Coedwen's point is worth thinking about. !284 is when the Brythonic laws of/based on Hywel Dda were finally extinguished, and so the point at which a significant part of the ancient (yes I know Hywel Dda was 900s AD not the beginning of time!) Brythonic cultural continuum of tradition came to an end. I just don't see that from a Brythonic point of view 1066 is a date of any significance. But I'm being pedantic more than anything else! I also think that 3 periods will be a start, for now, that would be an easy point of initial reference, working on the "keep it simple" philosophy. I'm still not sure you've explicitly suggested what we gain in terms of clarity by having these three simple periods - I wouldn't care how many we have it brings clarity and reduces risk of confusion in our discussions. As I said before I think simple is only good if it's demonstrably useful. You may well be right I just haven't myself worked out what we would gain from having these three periods as frames of reference? The "later Brythonic Period", as suggested, includes part of Britain still having over a hundred years of Brythonic rooted traditional law, with hearth and kin central to life and ancient heroes for cultural icons - and yet also includes the present day with a legislated for nanny state, the cult of the individual central to life and Jordan and Peter Andre for cultural icons? It just doesn't seem like a very homogenous frame of referrence?
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 16, 2008 21:11:11 GMT -1
I use 1066 as it was the last major land invasion, so there you have it, the first documented invasion and the last. I just think that's pretty anglocentric. I do think Coedwen's point is worth thinking about. !284 is when the Brythonic laws of/based on Hywel Dda were finally extinguished, and so the point at which a significant part of the ancient (yes I know Hywel Dda was 900s AD not the beginning of time!) Brythonic cultural continuum of tradition came to an end. I just don't see that from a Brythonic point of view 1066 is a date of any significance. But I'm being pedantic more than anything else! I am happy to use 1284, especially as it has direct relevance to what we are all about! Although I have never before been accused of being Anglocentric . I am suggesting 3 periods because that is a starting point and I feel that we need some starting points here. Have you not raised this issue yourself? RR
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Jan 16, 2008 21:25:28 GMT -1
Although I have never before been accused of being Anglocentric . Sorry! I am suggesting 3 periods because that is a starting point and I feel that we need some starting points here. Have you not raised this issue yourself? Yes I know! I'm not being awkward deliberately its just that sometimes how starting points are crafted is so important. They can quiet unintentionally lead to a gentle "nudging" of patterns of thought. I definitely think it would give clarity to have frames of reference in terms of time periods. I just wonder if the balance between simplicity and utility isn't just a little to the right of three!
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Jan 17, 2008 7:42:59 GMT -1
I use 1066 as it was the last major land invasion, so there you have it, the first documented invasion and the last. Oh 1066 and all that! Yes, English historians have long claimed that that was the last significant land invasion of their country, however I, and history, would beg to differ... For instance how about the following invasions: 1. Robert Bruce led a Scottish invasion of England that got as far south as the Midlands. Sometime romantically portrayed as Celts vs. Saxons... 2. Harry Tudor in the latter days of the 15th Century. A Welshman, no less, landed in South Wales with a considerable force and then marched across Wales & England to Bosworth field where he overthrew the French Plantagenet Nobility and established a new dynasty. In the end this was a thoroough a change as the Norman invasion of 1066 for Henry VII changed the nature of British Royalty and Nobility forever. 3. In 1745 the Young Pretender landed in Western Scotland with French and Irish Troops and led them, with a ragtag band of highland clansmen, on an extensive invasion of England. History is never a clear cut as some would make out. I think slicing it into three divisions does not help us at all.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Jan 17, 2008 7:55:22 GMT -1
I absolutely agree witht Craig there. British history is a fascinating, and considedrably more colourful thing than the history books would have us believe. Don't forget the French landing in South Wales and sacking a town during the Napoleonic war also.
I am not at all clear what purpose of separating the Brythonic tradition into specific time periods would actually serve for the average person with an interest in the spirituality of Briatin.
For my own part I have a very specific interest in the period leading up to and including the Roman invasion, so I am fascinated by the society of the first centuries BC and AD. But if a person is simply interested how they relate to their Gods *now* what difference does it make to them? I take it upon myself to find out the minutiae of significance of various practices so that it can be passed on to be used by others as they see fit, it's not knowledge to be classified and indeed hoarded.
For example, the average Xian well knows the story of the resurrection and the tomb, but how many are aware of the social significance of the tomb itself or why it was Mary that found it? How many *need* to know?
Whilst there is two thousand years between the writings of Cato and the French grimoire I mentioned, essentially this is irrelevant if you are interested in the *why * of how people did these things. I may look at the practices of a 19th century horse whisperer, and relate this back to the potential practices employed by a Roman cavalry horse wrangler who had a dedication to Epona in his stable. The Saxon noble may be buried at certain place not because of a wish to proclaim his dominion, but because they respect the dead and are following them rather than dominating them. That old Xian may church may indeed be an example of the edict of Gregory.
The Brythonic tradition is a continuum not a set of categories.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Jan 17, 2008 8:01:56 GMT -1
2. Harry Tudor in the latter days of the 15th Century. A Welshman, no less, landed in South Wales with a considerable force and then marched across Wales & England to Bosworth field where he overthrew the French Plantagenet Nobility and established a new dynasty. In the end this was a thoroough a change as the Norman invasion of 1066 for Henry VII changed the nature of British Royalty and Nobility forever. I forgot to add to that, he dismantled the previous feudal system which basically led to the eventual institution of democracy. Not insignificant. You often hear of Llewelyn ap Gruffydd as the last native prince of Wales, but how many times do you hear of the last native *king*. That one don't sit too well.
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Jan 17, 2008 12:09:55 GMT -1
Tha last native King could be said to be James II, who was betrayed by his Parliament and his crown given to a Dutchman. You can tell I come from Catholic stock can't you If you are not keen on the 'nativeness' of the Stuart dynasty (a very murky area indeed) then the last native Monarch would have been that famous Welsh woman, Elizabeth I, descendant of the Tudors of Ynys Mon. The English have not had an English monarch since Harold copped it on Senlac Hill. Norman French, then Angevin French and Plantagenet French, Welsh Tudors, Scot's Stuarts, a Dutchman and then Germans ever since.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Jan 17, 2008 12:42:16 GMT -1
By native I was referring specifically to Wales, and the prince who was actually born in Wales, Llewelyn.
|
|