|
Post by Craig on Oct 20, 2008 9:44:17 GMT -1
Well I'm a genetic norseman [about 900CE] who's been in Wales for three generations.
The Brython project is open to anyone who feels a connection to this land and/or is interested in the gods and ancestors of this land. The tribe is inclusive not exclusive.
All you got to have really is curiousity and a willingness to share.
|
|
|
Post by ceinach on Oct 20, 2008 11:18:44 GMT -1
ok, so I am understanding from what people are saying that I could consider myself Brythonic based on my mud and gods if I so wanted to... ok thank you...
So would you consider the word Brythonic to be a good name for what is possibly a native british tradition? Interestingly looking at other indiginous tribes throughout the world, this seems to be the basis for most of their religions - assuming they have not been converted to Chrisendom or similar, and their "priests" are the shamans - so called by english speaking anthropologists - I am sure they have their own native name for them, so, if someone is acting as a "priest" or celebrant in the Brythonic traidition, what would they/could they be called? What is native to us? And how would they go about attaining that status - appointed by who? Could this not lead to the same issues as Stefan is talking about if it's not properly defined?
I hope this makes sense and is not just the ramblings of a mad-woman!
|
|
|
Post by Blackbird on Oct 20, 2008 11:48:03 GMT -1
As far as I'm concerned, priests are as priests do. If someone is acting as a priest for their community, then they deserve the title.
The important thing is that priests are not self appointed. The idea is that, from within any given community, the person with the most aptitude, knowledge and willingness for priesthood will probably take on that role. For example, I've done priestly duties on occasion, usually when there was nobody better around to do it. If more people asked me to do stuff like that, I could end up becoming a priest for the community. However, you couldn't just set yourself up as a priest if you don't already have the trust of your community - if nobody asks you do do anything for them, then you're not a priest!
Personally, I don't see any problem with using the word 'druid' to describe our priests. At the moment, misuse of the word has led to it becoming irrelevant, and for now, we need to ditch it for a while, until we can reclaim it and start using it in its proper sense.
|
|
|
Post by ceinach on Oct 20, 2008 12:02:08 GMT -1
Absolutely agree Blackbird, I have a huge problem with people self appointing themselves as anything, let alone community leaders, especially the ones with little or no knowledge or training and are just out for the self gratification and ego....
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 24, 2008 21:28:03 GMT -1
Strange coincidence, Red Raven ....
We both have invading ancestors. Mine came over as cup-bearer to William the C - but I should imagine his job was more likely to entail sampling from the potentially poisoned chalice than carrying it around on a pretty velvet cushion.
I was born in far-flung East Africa, and got my British nationality courtesy of a big fight for a passport, a Plaid Cymru MP, and an intervention by the Home Secretary.
I reckon if I fought that hard I deserve to be British. *grin*
I have the curiosity .... and the love of my land .... and it's so nice to be on a forum where people talk sensibly and don't quarrel all the damn time. I've been diligently reading threads today to get a feel of the place.
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Nov 25, 2008 8:23:11 GMT -1
Hi Chris, We do argue, but it is on the basis of friendship and mutual respect. However I do know what you mean
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 25, 2008 14:09:01 GMT -1
Some people could argue in an empty room with friendly and respectful spirits of place.
It kinda gets in the way.
|
|
|
Post by sehnga on Dec 13, 2008 8:30:36 GMT -1
My only question about pre-Roman Brythons would be....which ones? Also, has anyone considered using the Genographic Project/DNA testing as an additional source of information?
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Dec 13, 2008 14:58:15 GMT -1
My only question about pre-Roman Brythons would be....which ones? The ones who were immediately pre-Roman, otherwise they would tend to be referred to as Bronze Age Beaker, neolithic etc. Also, has anyone considered using the Genographic Project/DNA testing as an additional source of information? In what context? For us now it's irrelevent what our DNA is.
|
|
|
Post by sehnga on Dec 13, 2008 18:45:37 GMT -1
I was reading an online history of England (here: www.englandandenglishhistory.com/adventus-saxonem-england-english/default.aspx) and it states that the Brythons were essentially wiped out by the Anglo Saxons: Many of you have done major investigative work into this period of history; would you agree with the above statements? My thought was perhaps it would useful to trace the genetics, which might possibly lead to other sources for early religious/cultural beliefs that might assist in rebuilding.
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 14, 2008 9:08:22 GMT -1
My thought was perhaps it would useful to trace the genetics, which might possibly lead to other sources for early religious/cultural beliefs that might assist in rebuilding. Why would the genetics of individuals have any bearing on what we are doing here? Would the "purity" of our genetic code qualify us to represent our ideas any better? If that is what you are looking for, then I'm afraid you will be disappointed. Setting aside the theological differences between the religions of the world, the fact is that when we die, the animating force that is present in all of us, be that including the "personality" or not, leaves the body. Now, if genetics and race, creed, whatever was the point of us being here, wouldn't that animating force not want to take a "sample" of our DNA with which to build a "superior" generation? The fact that it does not take any physical material with it would suggest to me, that the animating force only "needs" the experiences gained by living in that physical body. That would appear, to me at least, to be the over-riding purpose of life. Do the Gods with which you associate with, require of you to possess some physical prerequisite before they will "communicate" with you? The statement you have supplied is interesting conjecture about what may happened to indiginous people of Britain, but if you think our purpose here is to "recreate" a pre-Roman spirituality then you are wide of the mark. Some of us are interested in that period, others are interested in later periods, right up to present day, our "prerequisite" is that the individual has some form of connection with these lands, be that physically or spiritually. Genetics has nothing to do with it, except may be in a cultural context, but even then, we are not looking to qualify that though genetics. RR
|
|
|
Post by sehnga on Dec 14, 2008 10:08:02 GMT -1
Genetic prerequisites are not what I'm looking for, no. But then, given the paucity of information available for pre-xtian Britian, it seems that you aren't really doing anything terribly different than the other druid groups, except being more firm about community needing to bestow (earned/deserved) labels on individuals. No offense intended, of course. It seems that most of the available pagan info for Britian has been milked thoroughly over several centuries. I very much admire the efforts to remain historically accurate, but again; you're working with basically the same info everyone else has. How can this project rebuild a pagan spirituality native to the area?
I guess I'm asking how this project will end up differently then any others?
|
|
|
Post by jez on Dec 14, 2008 10:38:44 GMT -1
Genetic prerequisites are not what I'm looking for, no. But then, given the paucity of information available for pre-xtian Britian, it seems that you aren't really doing anything terribly different than the other druid groups, except being more firm about community needing to bestow (earned/deserved) labels on individuals. No offense intended, of course. It seems that most of the available pagan info for Britian has been milked thoroughly over several centuries. I very much admire the efforts to remain historically accurate, but again; you're working with basically the same info everyone else has. How can this project rebuild a pagan spirituality native to the area? I guess I'm asking how this project will end up differently then any others? Some of what is/was pre-Christian is also post-Christian, or more accurately, mid-Christian. Part of what Brython will use is preserved in things which are nominally heathen, or nominally Christian, or nominally folk-tradition. There are a lot of things preserved in the AS corpus of writings which are not Scandiwegilandic, but are clearly English, in the sense that is, here, being called Brythonic. There is an underlying tendency (and in some people's cases a belligerent insistence) to believe that nothing worth bothering with can possibly be preserved in English, that the only worthwhile source material must be Welsh, Gælic, Irish et al. That cannot be true. Anyone who came to live in these lands will have met the gods of these lands, and the gods were starved by centuries of Christian neglect by the time the polytheist pagans of the various settlings arrived, and opened themselves to the native Lords and Ladies, as polytheists have done in al places and all centuries for all time. Thunor is not Thor, but He is at the least very similar to Taranis (shared PG with Blackbird and some others). Woden is not Odin (shared PG with several British heathens who find Them both in the wilds of parts of the Peak). And the pagan mothers whose pagan children fell ill (bitten by local animals, caught by local diseases, offending local wights) in Christian lands went to local Brythonic Christians and asked for cures and charms to make their children well. And then those charms, adapted by the use of OE names for the titles given by local people, survived to be forbidden again by the resurgent Christian authorities... The laws of the early AS church and state are illuminating as to the pagan practices which persisted and persisted and persisted into the later medieval times... To restrict Brython to only the earlier waves of settlers, those with a cut-off date of, say, 100CE, seems to be, as it were, cutting off your nose to spite your face... -- Of course, if you want to be DNA-ist about it, there is the fact that it rather depends which gene you trace. If you concentrate on Y-chromosome and ignore everything else, including the line of the Mothers, you ignore 45/46 of each pairing. -- Jez - whose own male line runs out this generation, having never been particularly numerous, and was Welsh, for what it was worth. And no-one slaughtered them. They simply had more girls than boys...
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Dec 14, 2008 10:55:57 GMT -1
Old arguement, one that is fun to get into but doesn't really matter here. There was a cultural division. And since the high kings were in the West, the people of the East were left to get on with it. It's when the Saxon/Jutish/Angle/ex-Romano-British peoples started forcing Westward that the problem came. There is some truth to that. Early Saxon cemetaries are 100% Saxon. That implies no mixing. Gradually, up into the 800s, you get mixed cemetaries, roughty 50% Saxon 50% British, which means they were intermarrying at that point. After that it's a bit of a free-for-all. Which implies that the Saxons were more relaxed about their British neighbours in a way they weren't a few generations before (maybe laws were relaxed). And the Britons who had lived in Saxon areas for generations would probably have had little in common with the Britons further west (language, laws, expectations). A young Briton growing up in a Saxon village in 800ad would have thought of him/herself as Saxon, in the same way that a young Briton growing up in a Roman village in Kent in 300ad would have thought of him/herself as Roman. It is useful to trace genetics, if it gives YOU a better sense of your history and place in this muddled modern world. If you're a very proper English Gentleman, and you find that you're ancestors came from Carmarthen, that might make you more sympathetic and open to Welsh history and culture than you maybe would have been before. But that's where its usefulness stops. British/Romano-British/Welsh/Scots/Cornish/Irish - these aren't blood-groups, they are cultures. It doesn't matter what blood-group you are, or what genetic "race" your ancestors were, what matters is what culture YOU are, and how you deal with it, live it and honour it. The problem with genetics is: where do you stop? Genetically we're all North African, so should we honour the gods of Africa, learn their songs etc? No, that's not who we are.
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Dec 14, 2008 10:58:23 GMT -1
My thought was perhaps it would useful to trace the genetics, which might possibly lead to other sources for early religious/cultural beliefs that might assist in rebuilding. That's a very interesting idea. If a group were looking to rebuild the spiritual culture of a specific people, then I think there would be a lot of useful mileage in what you suggest. Despite appearances to the contrary (probably reflecting the specific interests and expertise of perhaps the majority here) it is connection to this land rather than a specific 'race' that motivates us here. Of course genetic heritage is important too, but very difficult to talk about on internet boards - far too easy for people to hear what they expect rather than what's said, and for the whole thing to degenerate. Genetic heritage in this context is of course nothing to do with DNA - although that can act as a 'marker' for it - it is to do with the stories of your ancestors, their connection, your connection and how you came to be where, and what you are. Cultural heritage is relevant and shouldn't be a taboo topic for discussion. Would it seem reasonable for me to suggest that a person of Anglo-Nigerian descent would have more potential and context to persue relationship with North West African 'deities' (once relevant to their ancestors) or 'totems' than someone of Welsh-Anglo descent? They have been part of the story line of one person but not the other. I'm not talking about some racist exclusivity, but I am wondering what people think of the idea that there are differences in the potentials for resonance that are connected to your ancestry- an over used word being used here in the way it's used in the jargon of physics.
|
|
|
Post by jez on Dec 14, 2008 11:04:26 GMT -1
I have always assumed this was because the Christians would not lie with the pagans. You begin to get mixing when Christianity wins out again, after the rulers see the light, as it were, of free trade with the Christian nations, which can only be achieved when they convert.
That's certainly what happened later in Iceland, when the Christian rulers around threatened to withdraw trade unless the Icelanders gave up their religion.
We have no records of what 'incentive' were offered to the AS peoples, or to their rulers, but it seems a likely bet that similar bullying tactics were employed to restore Christianity to the now-pagan lands.
And of course, we have to assume that the Brythonic peoples, in Wales and so on, were on the side of the Christians, since they were sending missionaries to England throughout the pagan times.
--
Jez
|
|
|
Post by jez on Dec 14, 2008 11:16:11 GMT -1
It seems to me, having met and camped with polytheist pagans of many colours and heritages (is that a word?) for decades, that the gods of a land speak to the people they find in that land. I know a very pagan folk-singer who happens to be black, and whose heritage 'ought' (if DNA had any say in it) to be called by the gods of a small country in Africa. But he isn't, he's called to be a local Lady and Her Lord. He is, therefore, Brythonic, by any definition. He lives here, his children live here, his gods live here...
What more can there be?
--
Maybe if he went to his 'native land' he would hear his 'tribal gods'. If so, then that is no different from me hearing Kali when I was visiting India, and no more unlikely. Gods speak with whom they will, and if we are there to hear, then we will hear.
I expect to hear Welsh wights when I am in Wales, Scottish wights when I am in Scotland, Irish wights in Ireland, etc etc.
I would be surprised if it were not so.
--
Though, as the worship of the Christian pantheon shows, some gods 'travel' well, others badly.
--
Jez
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Dec 14, 2008 11:20:21 GMT -1
exactly that. It's about experience. It's practical as well as spiritual.
Example. Someone born and raised in the desert of Texas. As were her parents. As were their parents. And their parents. Their life experience has been the desert. How can that person (reasonably) connect with some babbling Welsh-stream? Or some snowy Scottish mountain? It's outside of their experience. You can visit, taste it, but you'll never know what it's like to BE that culture, to LIVE that place, from birth, so that you and it are inseparable.
I think if there is any difference between us and other groups, is that we believe in the spirit of the land, the genius loci, the wights... they aren't movable in the way people are. So, if you're on the Island of Britain, connect with THAT land. If you're from Texas, connect with THAT land. If you live in Turkey, connect with THAT land. If you live in Australia, connect with THAT land.
The idea that you can follow the religion of a distant land started with Rome/Christianity, has been continued with Buddhism and Islam.. but it's not really the pagan way. Each land has their own gods, their own spirit and life and legend. We need to stop the "grass is greener" mentality and look to our own land and culture, whatever that is. It's a far richer and more rewarding experience than trying to adopt a different religion from a different culture in a different land. It's not racist, it's practical.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Dec 14, 2008 11:55:29 GMT -1
Fosterage.
|
|