Druidic history
David Dalton
a druidic path and would prefer to be on one that
is as traditional as possible and hence asked me
to forward this request for druidic history (and
maybe a little path) advice; plus tomorrow I will
e-mail him some references to newsgroups, mailing
lists, web pages and maybe some books.
You can reply either here or by e-mail to me at
n06drd AT mun DOT ca and in either of those two
cases I will summarize by e-mail to him or you can
e-mail him directly (or both).
Here is his e-mail:
------------------------------
From: "Steven" <divin...@hotmail.com>
I have deep interest in the histories of the ancient celts especially
the Druids. More or less, i would ask you for some helpful references
when it comes to this era 300 ad to modern neo/Romantic Druidism.
I would be greatly appeased if you could reply with some information,
as i am exploring the gaulish, manx and major clans of said periods
partaining to the celts.
With much thanks,
-Steven.
p.s. maybe a direction to a path i see not.
-----------------------------
David
Searles O'Dubhain
"David Dalton" <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
news:bmiho0$q5f$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...
<snip>
>
> I would be greatly appeased if you could reply with some information,
> as i am exploring the gaulish, manx and major clans of said periods
> partaining to the celts.
>
> With much thanks,
>
> -Steven.
> p.s. maybe a direction to a path i see not.
> -----------------------------
>
> David
A good place to start with info and traditions of the Isle of Man is
Frances Coakley's A Manx Notebook:
http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/fulltext/index.htm
It's a treasure throve of books and papers about the people and their
ways.
Searles
Agamemnon
relation to anything mentioned be Romans historians. Druidism suggests Tree
worship so what are Druids doing at Stonehenge.
"David Dalton" <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
news:bmiho0$q5f$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...
Kevin Jones
news:bmke0o$cmv$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Modern Druidism was all CONCOCTED in the 19th century
Well, 18th century.
>and has absolutely no relation to anything mentioned be Romans historians.
True.
>Druidism suggests Tree worship
Errm! Might seriously disagree with you there.
>so what are Druids doing at Stonehenge.
Those at Stonhenge are the spiritual descendants of the 18th century lot.
Which is not to say that everyone has any relation to them, or have anything
in common with *modern*druidism. Mind you, if that lot wish to fart-arse
round Stonhenge on the summer solstice <shrug!> that's up to them.
Kevin
Nori Otaku
> Modern Druidism was all CONCOCTED in the 19th century and has absolutely
> no relation to anything mentioned be Romans historians.
Firstly, that depends on the particular Druidic group. Modern
reconstructionists, for example, attempt to practice "in the old way".
If you mean that there is no unbroken line of initiation, then you are
certainly correct - Druidism either died out or was destroyed centuries
ago. However, modern Druidism does seek to construct its belief and
practice on the basis of historical and mythological content; with varying
degrees of reconstructionism.
> Druidism suggests Tree worship so what are Druids doing at Stonehenge.
Druidism suggests worship of both Trees and Stones - I don't see your
point.
--
NoriOtaku :: Change 'spam' to 'com' to send mail
Agamemnon
"Nori Otaku" <nori_...@yahoo.spam> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.16...@noriotaku.usenet...
> Agamemnon wrote on Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:25:33 +0100:
>
> > Modern Druidism was all CONCOCTED in the 19th century and has absolutely
> > no relation to anything mentioned be Romans historians.
>
> Firstly, that depends on the particular Druidic group. Modern
> reconstructionists, for example, attempt to practice "in the old way".
What is your pantheon of Gods and the mythology surrounding them.
Prove that Druidism wasn't invented after Julius Caesars conquest of
Britian.
>
> If you mean that there is no unbroken line of initiation, then you are
> certainly correct - Druidism either died out or was destroyed centuries
> ago. However, modern Druidism does seek to construct its belief and
> practice on the basis of historical and mythological content; with varying
> degrees of reconstructionism.
>
> > Druidism suggests Tree worship so what are Druids doing at Stonehenge.
>
> Druidism suggests worship of both Trees and Stones - I don't see your
> point.
Druidism has nothing to do with stones.
The word Druid comes from Dryn-ites or Tree-ites and means people who lived
in forests.
You can safely rule our all ancient megaliths and circles from druidic
worship. Up until 1066 AD 90% of Britain was forested.
Nori Otaku
>
> "Nori Otaku" <nori_...@yahoo.spam> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.10.16...@noriotaku.usenet...
>> Agamemnon wrote on Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:25:33 +0100:
>>
>> > Modern Druidism was all CONCOCTED in the 19th century and has
>> > absolutely no relation to anything mentioned be Romans historians.
>>
>> Firstly, that depends on the particular Druidic group. Modern
>> reconstructionists, for example, attempt to practice "in the old way".
>
> What is your pantheon of Gods and the mythology surrounding them.
None. I'm an atheist. But I find Celtic history and mythology very
fascinating, and make an informal study of it. Much to learn have I...
> Prove that Druidism wasn't invented after Julius Caesars conquest of
> Britian.
I don't have sufficient documentation to prove either way. However, there
were certainly Celtic religions prior to Caeser's conquest; perhaps the
label "Druidism" is inappropriate, but perhaps not.
>> If you mean that there is no unbroken line of initiation, then you are
>> certainly correct - Druidism either died out or was destroyed centuries
>> ago. However, modern Druidism does seek to construct its belief and
>> practice on the basis of historical and mythological content; with
>> varying degrees of reconstructionism.
>>
>> > Druidism suggests Tree worship so what are Druids doing at Stonehenge.
>>
>> Druidism suggests worship of both Trees and Stones - I don't see your
>> point.
>
> Druidism has nothing to do with stones.
>
> The word Druid comes from Dryn-ites or Tree-ites and means people who
> lived in forests.
Actually, according to the scholarly sources I have so far researched (by
no means exhaustive) there seems to be a consensus that "Druid" means
either "tree knowledge" "oak truth" or some recombination thereof.
That doesn't mean that records of Druidic practice, and recorded Celtic
myth, don't include suggestions of stone worship.
> You can safely rule our all ancient megaliths and circles from druidic
> worship. Up until 1066 AD 90% of Britain was forested.
True that. The Megalithic peoples should not be confused with Druidism: I
never said they should. Rather, if modern Druids recognize the importance
of Stone as a symbol of earth and it leads them to include megaliths,
dolmens and circles in thier worship, so be it!
I don't deny the basic point that neo-Druidic worship is far different
than what was probably practiced by the ancient Celts; all I'm saying is
that (depending on the group) modern Druids take a lot of what they
practice from historical, archeological, and mythological records of
ancient religion.
So to say that the whole thing was CONCOCTED is fallacious; rather, much
like Wicca, it is an amalgam of old and new ideas brought together in a
new context.
Agamemnon
"Nori Otaku" <nori_...@yahoo.spam> wrote in message
Eusebius proved that all the ancient religions were ANCESTOR CULTS.
Wicca which worships a so-called mother goddess to totally fallacious as are
all religions that worship nature since they are all modern inventions.
Once you have assembled a list of Gods of the ancient Britons and fin out
when they lived then you will know what Druidism was really about.
The stone circles were probably built as War Memorials on the sties of
battlefields. For example the fact that on the summer solstice the sun hits
the heal stone at Stonehenge indicates that that was the day an ancient
battle took place.
clo...@softcom.net
Nori Otaku wrote:
Finally a decent post out of you!!! Congrads!!!!
A study of the origins and subsequent variations on the theme involving Wicca
and Neo-Druidry does show clearly that they are both fanciful eclectic
concoctions, subject to oft ulterior motives..
There are also the Mediterranean, Hebrew and Christian influences on Wicca and
Neo-Druidry to consider.
Now stop addressing people in your condescending, better than thou way and you
might be of some value around here.
One thing you need to learn about the Irish, when you talk down your nose at
them they are liable to rap you in the snot locker just for the fun of it. No
offense meant!
:-) Jim
Kevin Jones
The ancient Greeks also proved that the earth was the centre of the
universe. In any case, Eusebius isn't a good source for such information,
though he was probably gleefully using Euhemerus..
> Wicca which worships a so-called mother goddess to totally fallacious as
are
> all religions that worship nature since they are all modern inventions.
>
> Once you have assembled a list of Gods of the ancient Britons and fin out
> when they lived then you will know what Druidism was really about.
>
> The stone circles were probably built as War Memorials on the sties of
> battlefields. For example the fact that on the summer solstice the sun
hits
> the heal stone at Stonehenge indicates that that was the day an ancient
> battle took place.
It indicates nothing of the sort. Firstly, Stonehenge was built in three
phases over the thick end of a thousand years - rather a long time to
commemorate a battle. Secondly the function of Stonehenge is almost
certainly to structure the agricultural year. It is fairly logical to use
the solstices to do so - in fact in a temperate zone it's pretty much the
only practical way of doing so. Chances are other megaliths were used in a
similar manner. Structuring time accurately is rather important to farmers -
amongst other things it enables them to be able to plan. Socially, it is
rather more essential to the survival of a farming culture than marking the
exact day of a battle.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
>
> "Nori Otaku" <nori_...@yahoo.spam> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.10.16...@noriotaku.usenet...
> > Agamemnon wrote on Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:25:33 +0100:
> >
> > > Modern Druidism was all CONCOCTED in the 19th century and has
absolutely
> > > no relation to anything mentioned be Romans historians.
> >
> > Firstly, that depends on the particular Druidic group. Modern
> > reconstructionists, for example, attempt to practice "in the old way".
>
> What is your pantheon of Gods and the mythology surrounding them.
Well, reading past posts round here might shed some light on that.
> Prove that Druidism wasn't invented after Julius Caesars conquest of
> Britian.
Actually fairly easily done. Firstly Caesar did not conquer all of Britain -
Claudius did. Nor did the Romans influence all of Britain before the
Claudian conquest - this is markedly shown by some coin studies I did
recently. The area of Roman influence is limited to the contact zone in the
south-east (Atrebates, Cantti, Regni), which is the bit that Caesar
conquered but did not hold. There's some influence from the core contact
zone on the intermediate area, but that's fairly minimal, and due to
near-neighbour effects. There are no influences on the peripheral zone (e.g.
Brigante).
Now this involved an analysis of religious symbolism - what you get in the
core contact zone is the adoption of Roman symbolism; more or less what
you'd expect. What you get outside that area is, with the odd variation, the
sort of symbolism seen on the continent. In short, the changes seen in the
core contact zone of the south-east mimic those seen in the later
development of Romano-Celtic culture under the empire.
OK, so now we turn to the Romano-Celtic material. So that I don't present
you with a 20 page essay, I'll cut to the chase - an analysis of the
iconography demonstrates that there is much that has no relationship to
Classical culture. It is therefore indigenous and predates Roman and Greek
influence. Furthermore, a good case can be made for - and this is part of
the dissertation - for it having roots in the development of early Bronze
Age farming societies that predated the ethnogenesis of the Celts, and some
elements may go back to the Neolithic. Which, mind you, is what a fair
number of academics have suggested from time to time.
That's putting it all in a nutshell - but basically (and I'm speaking as a
historian and archaeologist) we can practically certain that it was not
invented after Caesar's conquest and that it had nothing to do in any way
shape or form with either Greek or Roman culture. In fact chances are it
predates Graeco-Roman culture by a long way.
Now that's just on a theoretical basis. Druids are mentioned in the sources
before Caesar. Furthermore, Caesar had nothing to do with Ireland, and you
find druids there. So I think you're on to a non-starter.
> > If you mean that there is no unbroken line of initiation, then you are
> > certainly correct - Druidism either died out or was destroyed centuries
> > ago.
Unless you count the likes of the filidh as their successors. Now there's an
interesting and on-going argument. :-)
However, modern Druidism does seek to construct its belief and
> > practice on the basis of historical and mythological content; with
varying
> > degrees of reconstructionism.
> >
> > > Druidism suggests Tree worship so what are Druids doing at Stonehenge.
> >
> > Druidism suggests worship of both Trees and Stones - I don't see your
> > point.
>
> Druidism has nothing to do with stones.
Umm! Well, although the link between Stonehenge and druids seems to have
been an 18th century invention, it's not impossible that some stones were
reused over the centuries. After all, if they had been sacred sites since
time out of mind, it's what you would expect to happen. and certainly in
Ireland there is a link between pagan Celtic religion and pillar stones.
Then again, stone pillars and trees were equivalent in Romano-Celtic
iconography, and it's not due to Roman influence. Dogmatically stating that
druidism has nothing to do with stones is therefore rather rash,
particularly since it seems that stone pillars represented, or could stand
in for, trees.
> The word Druid comes from Dryn-ites or Tree-ites and means people who
lived
> in forests.
Highly unlikely. Farming requires clearing forests, and the Celts were good
at that. They did have managed woodland, but that's not the same as a
forest, and they didn't live in them. In fact last I heard druid means
something like the knowledge of the oak, which doesn't translate into
'Treeites'
> You can safely rule our all ancient megaliths and circles from druidic
> worship. Up until 1066 AD 90% of Britain was forested.
Umm! That was an earlier position - it has since been challenged on pollen
evidence. The Romans certainly deforested large areas for fuel and
construction timber. The Celts had deforested large areas before the Romans
came along, and deforestation was going on at a pace throughout the Bronze
Age. In fact it's even quite marked back in the Neolithic.
What does happen in the post-Roman period is that the heavy demand for
timber drops, so the forests regenerate markedly. There's also a marked
depopulation in places, probably due to plagues, which further reduces the
population. Basically the population of parts of Britain appear to crash in
the post-Roman period, and it takes a long time to recover - it still hasn't
recovered by the medieval period. Consequently there are many areas of
Britain that are heavily forested by 1066 and afterwards - however, this
does not mean that they were forested prior to 410 AD.
Kevin
Vanessa
> Eusebius proved that all the ancient religions were ANCESTOR CULTS.
Bear with me. He did? Can I have a reference to the particular passage that
does so, please?
> Wicca which worships a so-called mother goddess to totally fallacious as
are
> all religions that worship nature since they are all modern inventions.
All religions practiced today or in the past are "inventions," my friend.
However, as for your comments on 'mother goddess' religions - evidence
indicates that the most primitive peoples worshipped a goddess figure, and
that the earth may have been believed to be a female deity that was
self-fertilising. The concept of a 'mother goddess' is one of the most
ancient religious beliefs humans held, not to mention 'nature worship'.
> Once you have assembled a list of Gods of the ancient Britons and fin out
> when they lived then you will know what Druidism was really about.
And what is that?
> The stone circles were probably built as War Memorials on the sties of
> battlefields.
That's definately a valid theory amongst many.
Agamemnon
"Vanessa" <euri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v30lb.159337$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > Eusebius proved that all the ancient religions were ANCESTOR CULTS.
>
> Bear with me. He did? Can I have a reference to the particular passage
that
> does so, please?
You will have to read ALL of books 1 and 2 Preparation of the
gospel/Evangelia by Eusebius. And in order to understand what he is
referring to you will first have to read and STUDY Book 2 of Herodotus
Histories, and ALL of Apollodorus and ALL of Diodorus up to Book 10 and ALL
of Ovid's Metamorphosis and ALL of the Bible and ALL of Josephus Against
Apion and familiarise yourself for 13th to 20th Dynasty Egyptian history.
Is assume you can find all of those and have plenty of time on your hands.
This is not a subject for the uneducated.
>
>
> > Wicca which worships a so-called mother goddess to totally fallacious as
> are
> > all religions that worship nature since they are all modern inventions.
>
> All religions practiced today or in the past are "inventions," my friend.
> However, as for your comments on 'mother goddess' religions - evidence
> indicates that the most primitive peoples worshipped a goddess figure, and
POPPYCOCK. There is NO evidence whatsover that those figures were goddesses.
The most likely use for them was as pornographic images.
> that the earth may have been believed to be a female deity that was
> self-fertilising. The concept of a 'mother goddess' is one of the most
> ancient religious beliefs humans held, not to mention 'nature worship'.
Eusebius refutes the entire notion COMPLETELY as retrospective
allegorisation. These beliefs NEVER existed until someone took an existing
ancestor cult and associated each member of the pantheon with a natural
phenomenon or labelled the phenomenon after the God/Ancestor.
>
>
> > Once you have assembled a list of Gods of the ancient Britons and fin
out
> > when they lived then you will know what Druidism was really about.
>
> And what is that?
Give me the list of Gods and I'll tell you. Right now all the information on
Druids available suggests Tree Dwellers and nothing more. They were people
who lived in Britain's forests.
Lisa Spangenberg
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> Is assume you can find all of those and have plenty of time on your hands.
> This is not a subject for the uneducated.
It's a fairly standard introduction to Classical history reading list
for a sophmore survey course--it's hardly unusual.
--
Lisa L. Spangenberg | Digital medievalist
Celtic Studies Resources | http://www.digitalmedievalist.com
My opinions are my own. | Who else would want them?
Lisa Spangenberg
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> Prove that Druidism wasn't invented after Julius Caesars conquest of
> Britian.
Given the references in Gaulish texts from c. 350 B.C. and in Greek and
Latin texts from long before Caesar, that's an idiotic thing to even ask.
<snip>
> The word Druid comes from Dryn-ites or Tree-ites and means people who lived
> in forests.
Well that's just wrong. See the American Heritage Dictionary:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/D0400700.html
Pay particular attention to the Proto Indo-European roots:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE87.html
"10. druid , from Latin druides, druids, probably from Celtic compound
*dru-wid-, Å‚strong seerË› ( *wid-, seeing; see weid- ), the Celtic
priestly caste.
> You can safely rule our all ancient megaliths and circles from druidic
> worship. Up until 1066 AD 90% of Britain was forested.
That's also wrong. Pollen analysis indicates quite the contrary--yes,
there were a few large tracts of forests, but they were already being
carefully preserved as hunting reserves by the time of the Anglo-Saxon
laws in the tenth century, since much of the land was deforested enough
to cause soil erosian.
Lisa Spangenberg
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> The stone circles were probably built as War Memorials on the sties of
> battlefields. For example the fact that on the summer solstice the sun hits
> the heal stone at Stonehenge indicates that that was the day an ancient
> battle took place.
Where do you get this stuff?
There are a few limited and clearly "special" burials in the vicinity of
Stonehenge, but there's no data from either archaeology or texts to
support it as a battle site, and there are far too many of them to serve
such a purpose.
Calendrical and ritual purposes (like identifying "good" and "bad" days
for agricultural purposes and time keeping) are the likely reasons.
Doug Weller
>
>> Eusebius proved that all the ancient religions were ANCESTOR CULTS.
>
>Bear with me. He did? Can I have a reference to the particular passage that
>does so, please?
>
>
>
>> Wicca which worships a so-called mother goddess to totally fallacious as
>are
>> all religions that worship nature since they are all modern inventions.
>
>All religions practiced today or in the past are "inventions," my friend.
>However, as for your comments on 'mother goddess' religions - evidence
>indicates that the most primitive peoples worshipped a goddess figure, and
>that the earth may have been believed to be a female deity that was
>self-fertilising. The concept of a 'mother goddess' is one of the most
>ancient religious beliefs humans held, not to mention 'nature worship'.
Don't they require a division between sacred and secular that might not
have existed?
>> Once you have assembled a list of Gods of the ancient Britons and fin out
>> when they lived then you will know what Druidism was really about.
>
>And what is that?
>
>
>> The stone circles were probably built as War Memorials on the sties of
>> battlefields.
>
>That's definately a valid theory amongst many.
>
I don't think so. We can identify places where there were 'battles', by
arrowheads, etc. They aren't linked to stone circles.
And the idea of groups of warriors fighting each other on plains, etc. at
that time is, I would argue, anachronistic.
Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
clo...@softcom.net
and Druid. One would thing you were there.
Oh, I forgot, "it is written".
HaHaHa :-)
Doug Weller
Spangenberg wrote:
>In article <bmojqq$7qh$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>> The stone circles were probably built as War Memorials on the sties of
>> battlefields. For example the fact that on the summer solstice the sun hits
>> the heal stone at Stonehenge indicates that that was the day an ancient
>> battle took place.
>
>Where do you get this stuff?
Have you not run into Agamemnon before? So far as I can see he makes a lot
of it up. Seriously.
[SNIP]
Agamemnon
"Lisa Spangenberg" <lisaspa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lisaspangenberg-87...@news.newsguy.com...
> In article <bmojqq$7qh$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > The stone circles were probably built as War Memorials on the sties of
> > battlefields. For example the fact that on the summer solstice the sun
hits
> > the heal stone at Stonehenge indicates that that was the day an ancient
> > battle took place.
>
> Where do you get this stuff?
Logic. The Scyths built similar circles to mark the burial sites of their
dead kings.
>
> There are a few limited and clearly "special" burials in the vicinity of
> Stonehenge, but there's no data from either archaeology or texts to
> support it as a battle site, and there are far too many of them to serve
> such a purpose.
>
> Calendrical and ritual purposes (like identifying "good" and "bad" days
> for agricultural purposes and time keeping) are the likely reasons.
The thing only worked on midsummer's day 4000 years ago and was out of sync
by Christs time. It would have been completly useless as a sun dial or a
calendar predictor. There is no mathematics that the mirrors the arrangement
of the stones that serves any pourpose. Anyone could have predicted the
calendar farm more easily by looking at the stars or the altitude of the
sun.
Agamemnon
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vlpapv03p863proe2...@4ax.com...
4000 years ago most of Britain was forested. Arrows do not bend around
trees.
>
> And the idea of groups of warriors fighting each other on plains, etc. at
> that time is, I would argue, anachronistic.
If they could build Stonehenge then they could fight each other.
Agamemnon
> In article <bmmeqp$5fd$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>
> > Prove that Druidism wasn't invented after Julius Caesars conquest of
> > Britian.
>
> Given the references in Gaulish texts from c. 350 B.C. and in Greek and
> Latin texts from long before Caesar, that's an idiotic thing to even ask.
>
Which Gualish texts, which Gauls and what did they say.
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > The word Druid comes from Dryn-ites or Tree-ites and means people who
lived
> > in forests.
>
> Well that's just wrong. See the American Heritage Dictionary:
>
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/D0400700.html
>
> Pay particular attention to the Proto Indo-European roots:
DNA research has shown that there was no such thing as a Proto-Indo-European
tribe. 15,000 years ago Europe weans populated by 10 isolated unconnected
DNA lineages that never made any contact with each other until historical
times, otherwise the population of Europe would be genetically homogenous
which it isn't. Not one of these lineages exists in all parts of Europe
among each and everyone of the other lineages even today so there can be no
common ancestor tribe.
All of the words in European languages dealing with Agriculture came for the
people who brought farming and agriculture with them from the Middle East.
For example Calf is the same as Alef. All the words dealing with settlements
also came form the Middle East. Beit is the same as Polis and Vilyet and
Village, and Millet, and Palace. And all of these word's derive form the
same root as Melech, Melquart and Wanakas and Belus and Baal and Baalat
because they were all places built by kings.
The names of every day objects were given to them by the people who invented
them and when they were introduced into another culture during the period of
recorded history they kept the names they were originally given. There is NO
need for PIE. Copper came from Cyprus so it was called Cuprum from Kypron.
>
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE87.html
>
>
> "10. druid , from Latin druides, druids, probably from Celtic compound
> *dru-wid-, Å‚strong seerË› ( *wid-, seeing; see weid- ), the Celtic
> priestly caste.
Probably ?
So you are GUESSING then.
Wade
>
> "Vanessa" <euri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:v30lb.159337$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > > Eusebius proved that all the ancient religions were ANCESTOR CULTS.
Though he was well read, it has been suggested that his
clarity of thought did not match the breadth of his reading.
He may have made educated guesses about ancient
religions, but since there is no written record of "all ancient
religions" he cannot have *proved* anything. Unless he
invented a time machine of course. Mostly he wrote about
the Christian church and tended to include only those things
which glorified the church... including a fixation with martyrs.
> >
> > Bear with me. He did? Can I have a reference to the particular passage
> that
> > does so, please?
>
> You will have to read ALL of books 1 and 2 Preparation of the
> gospel/Evangelia by Eusebius. And in order to understand what he is
> referring to you will first have to read and STUDY Book 2 of Herodotus
> Histories, and ALL of Apollodorus and ALL of Diodorus up to Book 10 and
ALL
> of Ovid's Metamorphosis and ALL of the Bible and ALL of Josephus Against
> Apion and familiarise yourself for 13th to 20th Dynasty Egyptian history.
>
> Is assume you can find all of those and have plenty of time on your hands.
> This is not a subject for the uneducated.
<lol> What an amateur evasion. How about a brief synopsis
of the salient points of his argument. Actually, I've read most
of the material mentioned but for Eusebius. Never got round
to him. Though I have read a bit *about* him.
> > > Wicca which worships a so-called mother goddess to totally fallacious
as
> > are
> > > all religions that worship nature since they are all modern
inventions.
> >
> > All religions practiced today or in the past are "inventions," my
friend.
> > However, as for your comments on 'mother goddess' religions - evidence
> > indicates that the most primitive peoples worshipped a goddess figure,
and
>
> POPPYCOCK. There is NO evidence whatsover that those figures were
goddesses.
> The most likely use for them was as pornographic images.
Pornography is only one possibility among many. From a
study of comparative science, they may have been dolls.
The truth is that no one knows for sure. IMO, they were
probably fertility objects related to the life-giving female
principal of child birth. Which is intimately connected to
concepts of the divine feminine. So they may very well
be offerings (or icons) to a Mother like goddess.
> > that the earth may have been believed to be a female deity that was
> > self-fertilising. The concept of a 'mother goddess' is one of the most
> > ancient religious beliefs humans held, not to mention 'nature worship'.
>
> Eusebius refutes the entire notion COMPLETELY as retrospective
> allegorisation. These beliefs NEVER existed until someone took an existing
> ancestor cult and associated each member of the pantheon with a natural
> phenomenon or labelled the phenomenon after the God/Ancestor.
While ancestor veneration may have played a significant
role in the early evolution of many religions, you are making
statements that are impossible to prove.
> > > Once you have assembled a list of Gods of the ancient Britons and fin
> out
> > > when they lived then you will know what Druidism was really about.
> >
> > And what is that?
>
> Give me the list of Gods and I'll tell you. Right now all the information
on
> Druids available suggests Tree Dwellers and nothing more. They were people
> who lived in Britain's forests.
That is perhaps the most uninformed opinion I've ever heard.
I suppose they had tails to help them move from tree to tree. :^}
> > > The stone circles were probably built as War Memorials on the sties of
> > > battlefields.
> >
> > That's definately a valid theory amongst many.
> >
Well... it *a* theory anyway... as to how valid... who knows.
There is direct evidence linking ancient stone works with the
measurement of time.
--
Wade
Kevin Jones
>
> "Lisa Spangenberg" <lisaspa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:lisaspangenberg-87...@news.newsguy.com...
> > In article <bmojqq$7qh$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> >
> > > The stone circles were probably built as War Memorials on the sties of
> > > battlefields. For example the fact that on the summer solstice the sun
> hits
> > > the heal stone at Stonehenge indicates that that was the day an
ancient
> > > battle took place.
> >
> > Where do you get this stuff?
>
> Logic. The Scyths built similar circles to mark the burial sites of their
> dead kings.
Burial of dead kings is not the same as marking the site of a battle, unless
you assume that all kings die in battle and are buried where they fall.
Secondly, it is dangerous to assume that what the Scyths were up to is
identical to the practices of societies much further west and 3000 years
earlier. Consequently there is no logic in your argument - only unsupported
assumptions.
> >
> > There are a few limited and clearly "special" burials in the vicinity of
> > Stonehenge, but there's no data from either archaeology or texts to
> > support it as a battle site, and there are far too many of them to serve
> > such a purpose.
> >
> > Calendrical and ritual purposes (like identifying "good" and "bad" days
> > for agricultural purposes and time keeping) are the likely reasons.
>
> The thing only worked on midsummer's day 4000 years ago and was out of
sync
> by Christs time. It would have been completly useless as a sun dial or a
> calendar predictor. There is no mathematics that the mirrors the
arrangement
> of the stones that serves any pourpose. Anyone could have predicted the
> calendar farm more easily by looking at the stars or the altitude of the
> sun.
Errm! That's complete hogwash. The solstice sun still comes up near enough
where it did 4000 years ago - this can be observed, and has been seen by
countless thousands of people. The change in position of the sun over the
millennia is not that rapid. Furthermore, your argument is a non sequitur;
the change in position of stars is far more rapid, due to the precession of
the equinoxes, yet they were certainly used by some societies. And while one
can estimate where you are in the year by looking at the stars or the
altitude of the sun, these are not accurate methods. If you wanted accurate
methods you'd either use the solstices or the heliacal rising of a star,
because there were no other method available for accurately marking the
start and finish of the year. Which is no doubt why roughly the same broad
classes of methods are used by many early societies world wide.
I'd go off and read some books on archaeoastronomy if I were you. The field
is quite well advanced. I'll give you a few useful titles if you want.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
>
> "Vanessa" <euri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:v30lb.159337$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > > Eusebius proved that all the ancient religions were ANCESTOR CULTS.
> >
> > Bear with me. He did? Can I have a reference to the particular passage
> that
> > does so, please?
>
> You will have to read ALL of books 1 and 2 Preparation of the
> gospel/Evangelia by Eusebius. And in order to understand what he is
> referring to you will first have to read and STUDY Book 2 of Herodotus
> Histories, and ALL of Apollodorus and ALL of Diodorus up to Book 10 and
ALL
> of Ovid's Metamorphosis and ALL of the Bible and ALL of Josephus Against
> Apion and familiarise yourself for 13th to 20th Dynasty Egyptian history.
I say again - Eusebius is not a safe source to use. The gentleman was a
Christian, and therefore had a vested interest in proving pagan religions
false. He was only too glad to argue that they were false because they
worshipped human beings. In short, this is Christian propaganda.
Kevin
Agamemnon
"Wade" <xremove...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:A46dnTd1fPJ...@comcast.com...
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:bn3c4d$7uq$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Vanessa" <euri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:v30lb.159337$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > > Eusebius proved that all the ancient religions were ANCESTOR CULTS.
>
> Though he was well read, it has been suggested that his
> clarity of thought did not match the breadth of his reading.
> He may have made educated guesses about ancient
> religions, but since there is no written record of "all ancient
> religions" he cannot have *proved* anything. Unless he
> invented a time machine of course.
He didn't need a time machine. He had Greek translations of the original
Phoenician texts (dating to 1600 BC) that the stories in the Ras Sharma
tablets (1400 BC) were based on before the people in them were made into
Gods. Thus it was pretty obvious who the Gods were and where they came from
and how that were made into Gods. He also quotes Egyptians sources saying
much the same thing about the Egyptian religion and Greek writers who said
the same thing about the Greek religion and today there is overwhelming
archeological and historical evidence to prove that the Peloponnesian king
Apis who ruled in 1628 BC and who was worshiped in Hellenistic times as
Sarapis (Saiapis in Linear A inscriptions from Crete c.1625 BC) by the
Egyptians was the Hyksos 13th dynasty Pharaoh Apepi/Epaphus/Apis II. There
are also Linear A inscriptions that confirm the existence of Zeus
(Saasitepis/Zeus-Deus aka. Deus-Zeus) and Kronos/Saturn (Satur) as Cretan
kings in the cities which Diodotus places them.
>Mostly he wrote about
> the Christian church and tended to include only those things
> which glorified the church... including a fixation with martyrs.
>
> > >
> > > Bear with me. He did? Can I have a reference to the particular passage
> > that
> > > does so, please?
> >
> > You will have to read ALL of books 1 and 2 Preparation of the
> > gospel/Evangelia by Eusebius. And in order to understand what he is
> > referring to you will first have to read and STUDY Book 2 of Herodotus
> > Histories, and ALL of Apollodorus and ALL of Diodorus up to Book 10 and
> ALL
> > of Ovid's Metamorphosis and ALL of the Bible and ALL of Josephus Against
> > Apion and familiarise yourself for 13th to 20th Dynasty Egyptian
history.
> >
> > Is assume you can find all of those and have plenty of time on your
hands.
> > This is not a subject for the uneducated.
>
> <lol> What an amateur evasion. How about a brief synopsis
> of the salient points of his argument. Actually, I've read most
> of the material mentioned but for Eusebius. Never got round
> to him. Though I have read a bit *about* him.
I have already given my synopsis time and time a again in s.h.a. You have
just proven that you cant understated it through lack of education and
understating of the relevant historical period and historical texts. Since
you have not read Eusebius you are in no position to participate any kind of
debate.
>
> > > > Wicca which worships a so-called mother goddess to totally
fallacious
> as
> > > are
> > > > all religions that worship nature since they are all modern
> inventions.
> > >
> > > All religions practiced today or in the past are "inventions," my
> friend.
> > > However, as for your comments on 'mother goddess' religions - evidence
> > > indicates that the most primitive peoples worshipped a goddess figure,
> and
> >
> > POPPYCOCK. There is NO evidence whatsover that those figures were
> goddesses.
> > The most likely use for them was as pornographic images.
>
> Pornography is only one possibility among many. From a
> study of comparative science, they may have been dolls.
> The truth is that no one knows for sure. IMO, they were
> probably fertility objects related to the life-giving female
> principal of child birth. Which is intimately connected to
> concepts of the divine feminine. So they may very well
> be offerings (or icons) to a Mother like goddess.
The ancient farmers of 10,000 BC knew about the seasons and when to plant
their corps and that it took 9 months for a baby to be born from conception
so they did not need fertility objects.
>
> > > that the earth may have been believed to be a female deity that was
> > > self-fertilising. The concept of a 'mother goddess' is one of the most
> > > ancient religious beliefs humans held, not to mention 'nature
worship'.
> >
> > Eusebius refutes the entire notion COMPLETELY as retrospective
> > allegorisation. These beliefs NEVER existed until someone took an
existing
> > ancestor cult and associated each member of the pantheon with a natural
> > phenomenon or labelled the phenomenon after the God/Ancestor.
>
> While ancestor veneration may have played a significant
> role in the early evolution of many religions, you are making
> statements that are impossible to prove.
They have already been proven by Eusebius.
The only problem with Eusebius is his complete and utter hypocrisy since his
arguments against so-called "pagan" religions and their historical practices
are just as applicable to Judaism and Christianity. Zeus might have
committed incest with his sister but Lot committed incest with his own
daughters and Abraham with his own niece and in a monotheistic religion this
is far more of as problem especially when its god behaves like a
schizophrenic genocide sadomasochist and there is no alternative to him,
since he is an amalgamation of about 2 dozen of the Pharaohs of Egypt plus a
few other gods whose names like that of Pharaoh were removed from the bible
and replaced with LORD or YHWH.
>
> > > > Once you have assembled a list of Gods of the ancient Britons and
fin
> > out
> > > > when they lived then you will know what Druidism was really about.
> > >
> > > And what is that?
> >
> > Give me the list of Gods and I'll tell you. Right now all the
information
> on
> > Druids available suggests Tree Dwellers and nothing more. They were
people
> > who lived in Britain's forests.
>
> That is perhaps the most uninformed opinion I've ever heard.
> I suppose they had tails to help them move from tree to tree. :^}
No. They just lived in the forest.
Agamemnon
"Kevin Jones" <laig...@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bn42eo$1mm$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
Were Philo and Plato and Diodorus Chritians ?
90% of Eusebius entire Preparation of the Gospel/Evangelia is quotes from
Greek writers who know exactly what the Greek religion was based on and said
it. You should first READ Eusebius and learn what he actually said and not
what you think he said. There is no point in debating something with you
that you have not read.
>
> Kevin
>
>
Kevin Jones
news:bn3c4d$7uq$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> news:v30lb.159337$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > > Eusebius proved that all the ancient religions were ANCESTOR CULTS.
> >
> > Bear with me. He did? Can I have a reference to the particular passage
> that
> > does so, please?
>
> You will have to read ALL of books 1 and 2 Preparation of the
> gospel/Evangelia by Eusebius. And in order to understand what he is
> referring to you will first have to read and STUDY Book 2 of Herodotus
> Histories, and ALL of Apollodorus and ALL of Diodorus up to Book 10 and
ALL
> of Ovid's Metamorphosis and ALL of the Bible and ALL of Josephus Against
> Apion and familiarise yourself for 13th to 20th Dynasty Egyptian history.
>
> Is assume you can find all of those and have plenty of time on your hands.
> This is not a subject for the uneducated.
It's not bad for a start on Classical literature. Might be an idea if you
analysed Eusebius' argument, and its underlying agenda, rather than merely
accepting it critically.
A useful on-line reference to Eusebius:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm
Most peculiar site, but good for material relating to Church history and
dogma.
> > > Wicca which worships a so-called mother goddess to totally fallacious
as
> > are
> > > all religions that worship nature since they are all modern
inventions.
> >
> > All religions practiced today or in the past are "inventions," my
friend.
> > However, as for your comments on 'mother goddess' religions - evidence
> > indicates that the most primitive peoples worshipped a goddess figure,
and
>
> POPPYCOCK. There is NO evidence whatsover that those figures were
goddesses.
> The most likely use for them was as pornographic images.
Which first of all presupposes that they had a concept of pornography. Many
societies didn't.
> > that the earth may have been believed to be a female deity that was
> > self-fertilising. The concept of a 'mother goddess' is one of the most
> > ancient religious beliefs humans held, not to mention 'nature worship'.
>
> Eusebius refutes the entire notion COMPLETELY as retrospective
> allegorisation. These beliefs NEVER existed until someone took an existing
> ancestor cult and associated each member of the pantheon with a natural
> phenomenon or labelled the phenomenon after the God/Ancestor.
Eusebius can refute for all he want - he was presenting Christian
propaganda. Sundry Christians also refuted the idea that the earth goes
round the sun because it suited their religious notions.
Kevin
Agamemnon
It is your assumptions that are unsupported. Battlefield or burial markers
are the best supported possibilities.
> > >
> > > There are a few limited and clearly "special" burials in the vicinity
of
> > > Stonehenge, but there's no data from either archaeology or texts to
> > > support it as a battle site, and there are far too many of them to
serve
> > > such a purpose.
> > >
> > > Calendrical and ritual purposes (like identifying "good" and "bad"
days
> > > for agricultural purposes and time keeping) are the likely reasons.
> >
> > The thing only worked on midsummer's day 4000 years ago and was out of
> sync
> > by Christs time. It would have been completly useless as a sun dial or a
> > calendar predictor. There is no mathematics that the mirrors the
> arrangement
> > of the stones that serves any pourpose. Anyone could have predicted the
> > calendar farm more easily by looking at the stars or the altitude of the
> > sun.
>
> Errm! That's complete hogwash. The solstice sun still comes up near enough
> where it did 4000 years ago - this can be observed, and has been seen by
> countless thousands of people. The change in position of the sun over the
The solstice sun is no 30 degrees out of alignment. That's miles out.
Besides which you don't need a stone circle to tell you when the solstice
occurs. Stonehenge was not but to tell people when the solstice was but to
tell of something that happened on that day.
> millennia is not that rapid. Furthermore, your argument is a non sequitur;
> the change in position of stars is far more rapid, due to the precession
of
> the equinoxes, yet they were certainly used by some societies. And while
one
You've just shot yourself in the foot. It is because of precession that
Stonehenge is out of alignment.
> can estimate where you are in the year by looking at the stars or the
> altitude of the sun, these are not accurate methods. If you wanted
accurate
WRONG. Taking measurements of the altitude of the sun at noon is the most
accurate method with the technology available at the time. The solstices are
not affected by precession.
> methods you'd either use the solstices or the heliacal rising of a star,
> because there were no other method available for accurately marking the
> start and finish of the year. Which is no doubt why roughly the same broad
> classes of methods are used by many early societies world wide.
There is a very easy method of marking the start and end of the year. You
take a look at the trees and see when the leaves start falling.
Agamemnon
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
Read what he actually said not what someone thinks about him.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_01_book1.htm
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_02_book2.htm
>
> > > > Wicca which worships a so-called mother goddess to totally
fallacious
> as
> > > are
> > > > all religions that worship nature since they are all modern
> inventions.
> > >
> > > All religions practiced today or in the past are "inventions," my
> friend.
> > > However, as for your comments on 'mother goddess' religions - evidence
> > > indicates that the most primitive peoples worshipped a goddess figure,
> and
> >
> > POPPYCOCK. There is NO evidence whatsover that those figures were
> goddesses.
> > The most likely use for them was as pornographic images.
>
> Which first of all presupposes that they had a concept of pornography.
Many
> societies didn't.
Didn't what. How did the procreate.
>
> > > that the earth may have been believed to be a female deity that was
> > > self-fertilising. The concept of a 'mother goddess' is one of the most
> > > ancient religious beliefs humans held, not to mention 'nature
worship'.
> >
> > Eusebius refutes the entire notion COMPLETELY as retrospective
> > allegorisation. These beliefs NEVER existed until someone took an
existing
> > ancestor cult and associated each member of the pantheon with a natural
> > phenomenon or labelled the phenomenon after the God/Ancestor.
>
> Eusebius can refute for all he want - he was presenting Christian
> propaganda.
No. He was presenting Greek authors on their own religion. Every Greek know
they were worshiping their own ancestors even all the way up to the Gods,
for example Herakles.
Agamemnon
> In article <bn3svs$niq$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > Anyone could have predicted the
> > calendar farm more easily by looking at the stars or the altitude of the
> > sun.
>
Yes in hingerland.
>
> :)
>
> In all seriousness, and speaking as someone who took astronomy classes
> in England, artificial aid helps--and a nice large ritual center that is
You took astronomy classes. Well I can trump that one. I was internal
secretary of my universities Astro-Soc.
> visible for miles is a lovely statment of power.
Kevin Jones
I did - for a BA. And much more. Have you never heard of spin? And yes,
while the idea that the gods originated as mortals was debated by a few
philosophers in pagan Greece (a gentleman by the name of Euhemerus first
thought it up) that doesn't mean that their ideas were a) representative b)
right. The Greeks had little accurate knowledge of what happened in remote
antiquity so such ideas were based on philosophical speculation, largely
fuelled by the effective deification of city founders in polis religion. One
can note other examples of fairly crass philosophical deductions, such as
Aristotle's deduction that the world could not be either revolving or
moving, since everyone would fall over.
Now while some sort of veneration of the ancestors was practiced, that is
not the same as saying that all deities were ancestors. In fact quite a few
appear as gods before there are any Greeks - Dionysos is a prime example.
One might usefully have a look at the writings of Plutarch (The E in Delphi,
if I recall correctly) on Dionysos - Plutarch was a priest of Apollo. Again,
the name Jupiter is cognate with the Sanskrit Dyaus Pitr, which roughly
means Father Day/Sky, and the first bit of which is cognate with Zeus - in
short a personification of the bright sky. Similarly one can trace back the
likes of Hermes to the Minoan period - in fact at that remote period the
deity is not even anthropomorphic, which one might expect from an ancestor
deity. In fact it would seem that deities are likely to get more aniconic
the further back you go - representing them in human form is something that
comes later.
In short, the data rather suggests that at no time did these deities have
their origins in a real live human being, regardless of what Eusebius - or
even Euhemerus - says.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
Errm! This might comes as an awful shock to you, but procreation doesn't
have anything to do with pornography. One is a biological fact, the other a
cultural perception of representations of sexual matters and/or nakedness.
As it happens, the concept of pornography was invented in the 19th century -
it was specifically coined to describe various items of Roman art, quite a
few of which were religious, such as ceramic penises and satyrs rogering
nymphs. Prior to that, it would have been regarded as art - good art or bad
art, but art, religious or otherwise.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
I am going on very basic academic archaeological theory; it's a subject that
I have spent some six years studying. Battlefield markers are a highly
subjective assumption, and one that has no evidence whatsoever, in any way
shape or form, to support it. Similarly trying to draw parallels between
Iron Age Scyths and the Neolithic inhabitants of western Europe is a
complete no-no - you have to demonstrate the link first.
That is hogwash - go and learn some basic astronomy. Better still, go to
Newgrange. If the sun was 30 degrees out from the position it held at the
time of Newgrange's construction, it would not still shine into the passage
grave on the midwinter solstice.
I forget the actual figure for the movement of the sun over time, but it is
so slight that the position is effectively fixed over millennia.I believe
Neugebauer has the accurate figure - at the most, the sun is probably only 1
degree out from where it was when the first phase of Stonehenge was
constructed.
Now if the sun was whizzing round the sky like that, well let's see: 30
degrees in 4000 years, or a complete 360 degrees in 48,000 years. Hmm!
You've got the precession of the equinoxes mixed up with solar movements -
the precession of the equinoxes covers the movements of stars relative to
the sun, not the sun itself. Again, your figures would amount to 3 degrees
in 400 years, or one degree a century (give or take). Think the astronomers
would have noticed that. The actual value is of the order of fractions of a
second.
> Besides which you don't need a stone circle to tell you when the solstice
> occurs. Stonehenge was not but to tell people when the solstice was but to
> tell of something that happened on that day.
>
> > millennia is not that rapid. Furthermore, your argument is a non
sequitur;
> > the change in position of stars is far more rapid, due to the precession
> of
> > the equinoxes, yet they were certainly used by some societies. And while
> one
>
> You've just shot yourself in the foot. It is because of precession that
> Stonehenge is out of alignment.
Stonehenge is not out of alignment. It is not the equinoxes that precess,
despite the title - it is the heliacal rising of *stars* relative to the
equinoxes. The equinoxes are fixed with respect to the more rapid movement
of the stars. The term in fact refers to the change in the zodiacal
constellation in which the sun rises at the spring equinox - it is however
the stars that are moving, not the stars.
OTOH, if you think you can demonstrate that Stonehenge is out of alignment,
then you'll have to demonstrate what it was aligned to, since by your
argument it wouldn't be the summer solstice. That however means you'll have
to come up with an argument why the astronomers' observations of solar
movements are wrong. You'll then have to show why it was definitely a
battlefield monument, despite the lack of evidence, rather than a structure
for measuring time, which then means demonstrating how and why
archaeologists have got it wrong. I might suggest submitting your paper to
the Journal of the Prehistoric Society - after all, if you're right, and
everyone else is wrong, and you can demonstrate it, it should be
ground-breaking. I look forward to reading it.
> > can estimate where you are in the year by looking at the stars or the
> > altitude of the sun, these are not accurate methods. If you wanted
> accurate
>
> WRONG. Taking measurements of the altitude of the sun at noon is the most
> accurate method with the technology available at the time. The solstices
are
> not affected by precession.
The exact method - which is given by manuscripts - is to mark the length of
a shadow cast by a pillar when the sun is at its zenith on the summer
solstice. This results in the pillar casting its shortest shadow - in short,
you need equipment, you need a specified identifiable day on which to do the
observation (which means that there is something self-identifying about it),
and you need to establish when the sun is at its zenith. It's actually a
more recent method, archaeologically speaking, than the simpler method of
marking the shadow cast by a pillar at sunrise. However, the sun can also be
framed as it rises (Stonehenge), or be made to cast a beam of light through
an aperture (Newgrange), or be marked using either significant points on the
horizon (Brainport Bay, Argyll), or using artificial sighting alignments
(probably some of the Danish wheel petroglyphs).
However, merely looking at the altitude of the sun on a random day of the
year will not accurately tell you where you are in the year. As you put it,
it is an estimation - and an estimation is no good if your society is
getting mroe complex.
> > methods you'd either use the solstices or the heliacal rising of a star,
> > because there were no other method available for accurately marking the
> > start and finish of the year. Which is no doubt why roughly the same
broad
> > classes of methods are used by many early societies world wide.
>
> There is a very easy method of marking the start and end of the year. You
> take a look at the trees and see when the leaves start falling.
It is not accurate, and it is badly affected by seasonal climatic
variations. I'll give you a passage from my MA dissertation on the subject:
The earliest methods of structuring time appear to have been both lunar and
seasonal (Baity 1973; Thorpe 1982; Chamberlain 1988; Gingerich 1988, 40).
There is, however, a discrepancy of approximately eleven days between the
tropical[1] and lunar years, and a correction mechanism is required to
synchronise the two. Various cultures have achieved this using simple
non-mathematical rules-based methods and seasonal markers (Gell 1992, 300).
For example, the Trobriand Islanders kept their lunar calendar in step with
the sun by observing the first appearance of the marine paolo worm; if it
did not appear in the lunar month of Milamal, they simply added another
month[2] (Gingerich 1988, 41). The old Hebrew calendar was similarly
synchronised by the Sanhedrin's judgement on the appearance of the first
spring vegetation (Gingerich 1988, 41). Such terrestrial indications are,
however, affected by climatic variations, and are therefore extremely
inaccurate. Greater consistency can be achieved by marking the beginning of
the year with a celestial event instead, such as a solstice or the heliacal
rising of a star[3].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[1] The tropical year is 365.2425 days in length. The name comes from the
Greek term tropoi, or 'turning point'. It is defined as two successive
passages of the Mean Sun at the Mean Vernal Equinox (Neugebauer 1975, 60
n.2, 1082). However, in antiquity it was defined as the period of time
between two successive solstices (Neugebauer 1975, 293).
[2] That is, the lunar calendar had drifted by approximately one month in
respect to the marker for the tropical year.
[3] A star is said to be heliacally rising when, after a period of
invisibility, it appears just before dawn (Renfrew & Bahn 1996, 381).
Kevin
Nori Otaku
> Finally a decent post out of you!!! Congrads!!!!
>
> A study of the origins and subsequent variations on the theme involving
> Wicca and Neo-Druidry does show clearly that they are both fanciful
> eclectic concoctions, subject to oft ulterior motives..
Agreed. Though I don't know enough about neo-Druidism to know what those
"ulterior motives" might have been.
> There are also the Mediterranean, Hebrew and Christian influences on
> Wicca and Neo-Druidry to consider.
This is one large issue I take with "strict reconstructionists" who try to
remove Christian influences on Celtic myth - it's nigh-impossible to do
so, and it denies the evolution of the Celtic culture in the Christian
Era.
> Now stop addressing people in your condescending, better than thou way
> and you might be of some value around here.
I don't know why you take my tone to be condescending. I speak my mind,
and I do it in a manner that is as concise and precise as I can be. And,
in the manner of more formal debate, I state opinion as fact unless it is
not obvious that I'm stating opinion.
> One thing you need to learn about the Irish, when you talk down your
> nose at them they are liable to rap you in the snot locker just for the
> fun of it. No offense meant!
No offense taken. I'm also learning that, if you're a sample of Irish
blood, the Irish will frequently assume that someone is talking down their
nose at them; regardless of the accuracy of that assumption.
--
NoriOtaku :: Change 'spam' to 'com' to send mail
Nori Otaku
> Eusebius proved that all the ancient religions were ANCESTOR CULTS.
>
> are all religions that worship nature since they are all modern
> inventions.
Actually, Wicca isn't fallacious: it's just another religious idea.
However, you apparently misunderstand the nature of Wiccan worship.
Wiccans worship a Goddess of three faces: a Maiden, a Mother, and a Crone.
They also worship a God, the child of the Goddess.
This concept comes largely from Gardner's study of the Kabbalah, but it is
found in many other cultures as well.
Wiccans who claim that Wicca is an ancient religion, however, are being
fallacious. Wicca was created based on ideas of older religions,
recombinded with ideas of Gerald Gardner and others in the last century.
Nori Otaku
> The ancient farmers of 10,000 BC knew about the seasons and when to plant
> their corps and that it took 9 months for a baby to be born from
> conception so they did not need fertility objects.
Explain why modern religions continue to utilize fertility objects,
despite advanced scientific knowledge of agriculture and human life cycles?
Saying "oh, they had some knowledge based on observation, so they couldn't
have used fertility objects" is both fallacious and foolish.
Nori Otaku
> Wicca was created based on ideas of older religions,
> recombinded with ideas of Gerald Gardner and others in the last century.
Whoops. "Recombined". Nasty typo, that.
C. Leigh Nic Fhionghaile
"Nori Otaku" <nori_...@yahoo.spam> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.22....@noriotaku.usenet...
> No offense taken. I'm also learning that, if you're a sample of Irish
> blood, the Irish will frequently assume that someone is talking down their
> nose at them; regardless of the accuracy of that assumption.
I would suggest we not generalize about people's nationalities, and
especially don't take as example those who don't consider themselves "Irish"
unless it suits their current agenda.
Leigh
Agamemnon
"Nori Otaku" <nori_...@yahoo.spam> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.22....@noriotaku.usenet...
>
> > The ancient farmers of 10,000 BC knew about the seasons and when to
plant
> > their corps and that it took 9 months for a baby to be born from
> > conception so they did not need fertility objects.
>
> Explain why modern religions continue to utilize fertility objects,
> despite advanced scientific knowledge of agriculture and human life
cycles?
LOL..... LOL..... LOL.....
Which fertility objects would these be ?
>
> Saying "oh, they had some knowledge based on observation, so they couldn't
> have used fertility objects" is both fallacious and foolish.
Concluding something whose meaning in an ancient Mystery cult you don't know
about is a fertility object in modern religion is both fallacious and
Agamemnon
There is PLENTY of evicence.
The ancient Greeks marked the sites of the battle fields of Marathon with
stone structures and Alexander the Great and the ancient Egyptians and
Assyrian also marked the sites of battles with stone obelisks.
You are the one who needs to study astronomy. The earth suffers from two
forms of precession, axial precession and precession of the ellipse. Both of
these have the effect of shifting the solstices and equinoxes about.
Go read and learn
http://earth.usc.edu/geol150/variability/orbitalchanges.html
If Newgrange is causing the sun to shine into the grave on midsummer's day
today then that clearly was NOT what was intended when it was built because
of precession of the ellipse. It was probably on some other day that the
king died.
>
> I forget the actual figure for the movement of the sun over time, but it
is
> so slight that the position is effectively fixed over millennia.I believe
> Neugebauer has the accurate figure - at the most, the sun is probably only
1
> degree out from where it was when the first phase of Stonehenge was
> constructed.
>
> Now if the sun was whizzing round the sky like that, well let's see: 30
> degrees in 4000 years, or a complete 360 degrees in 48,000 years. Hmm!
Nope. Axial precession is 360 degrees every 25,700 years so in 4000 years
the constellations are out of alignment with the sun by 56 degrees.
Stonehenge would be useless as an astronomical calculator and it is pretty
useless as a sundial.
I don't need to come up with any argument. You are the one that need to
proove that Stonehenge was used as an astronomical caluaclator. Because of
precession it would have been practically redundant on the day it was
completed.
>You'll then have to show why it was definitely a
> battlefield monument, despite the lack of evidence, rather than a
structure
> for measuring time, which then means demonstrating how and why
The only thing Stonehenge does is mark the summer solstice. Why go to all
that trouble to do just that when anyone could work out when that was far
more easily. Its useless as an astronomical calculator or as a sun dial. It
has to be a monument of some kind.
> archaeologists have got it wrong. I might suggest submitting your paper to
> the Journal of the Prehistoric Society - after all, if you're right, and
> everyone else is wrong, and you can demonstrate it, it should be
> ground-breaking. I look forward to reading it.
>
> > > can estimate where you are in the year by looking at the stars or the
> > > altitude of the sun, these are not accurate methods. If you wanted
> > accurate
> >
> > WRONG. Taking measurements of the altitude of the sun at noon is the
most
> > accurate method with the technology available at the time. The solstices
> are
> > not affected by precession.
Let me clarify what I said. There will always be solstices despite
precession. Where they are wit respect to the constellations is affected by
precession.
>
> The exact method - which is given by manuscripts - is to mark the length
of
> a shadow cast by a pillar when the sun is at its zenith on the summer
> solstice. This results in the pillar casting its shortest shadow - in
short,
> you need equipment, you need a specified identifiable day on which to do
the
> observation (which means that there is something self-identifying about
it),
> and you need to establish when the sun is at its zenith. It's actually a
All you need to do to work out when the day of the summer solstice will be
is to mark of the lengths of the shadows on a sheet of paper against time
and draw a curve through them and compare that to the previous years curve.
That will tell you what day it is and how there are to go.
> more recent method, archaeologically speaking, than the simpler method of
> marking the shadow cast by a pillar at sunrise. However, the sun can also
be
Nope. This method is almost completely useless for predicting the date of
the up coming solstice. You would have to measure very small angles instead
of lengths.
> framed as it rises (Stonehenge), or be made to cast a beam of light
through
> an aperture (Newgrange), or be marked using either significant points on
the
> horizon (Brainport Bay, Argyll), or using artificial sighting alignments
> (probably some of the Danish wheel petroglyphs).
>
> However, merely looking at the altitude of the sun on a random day of the
> year will not accurately tell you where you are in the year. As you put
it,
> it is an estimation - and an estimation is no good if your society is
> getting mroe complex.
You look at the altitude, measure the length of the shadow or the angle of
the sun and compare it with a curve. This not only tells you what day it is
but your latitude as well and where north is and was the basis of the Viking
compass.
>
> > > methods you'd either use the solstices or the heliacal rising of a
star,
> > > because there were no other method available for accurately marking
the
> > > start and finish of the year. Which is no doubt why roughly the same
> broad
> > > classes of methods are used by many early societies world wide.
> >
> > There is a very easy method of marking the start and end of the year.
You
> > take a look at the trees and see when the leaves start falling.
>
> It is not accurate, and it is badly affected by seasonal climatic
> variations. I'll give you a passage from my MA dissertation on the
subject:
It gives you a pretty good average though over the years.
>
> The earliest methods of structuring time appear to have been both lunar
and
> seasonal (Baity 1973; Thorpe 1982; Chamberlain 1988; Gingerich 1988, 40).
> There is, however, a discrepancy of approximately eleven days between the
> tropical[1] and lunar years, and a correction mechanism is required to
> synchronise the two. Various cultures have achieved this using simple
> non-mathematical rules-based methods and seasonal markers (Gell 1992,
300).
> For example, the Trobriand Islanders kept their lunar calendar in step
with
> the sun by observing the first appearance of the marine paolo worm; if it
> did not appear in the lunar month of Milamal, they simply added another
> month[2] (Gingerich 1988, 41). The old Hebrew calendar was similarly
> synchronised by the Sanhedrin's judgement on the appearance of the first
> spring vegetation (Gingerich 1988, 41). Such terrestrial indications are,
> however, affected by climatic variations, and are therefore extremely
> inaccurate. Greater consistency can be achieved by marking the beginning
of
> the year with a celestial event instead, such as a solstice or the
heliacal
> rising of a star[3].
All that a farmer needs to know is when it is time to plant his crops.
Knowing the date of the solstice or equinox is useless to him because its
the climatic variations that determine when he plants and when he reaps the
harvest.
Accurate calendars and astronomical tables are only of use to Sailors. If
you want to prove that Stonehenge was used as a calendar you will not only
have to provide the mathematics of how it worked but also prove that there
was a maritime civilisation there which needed to use it.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
clo...@softcom.net
Nori Otaku wrote:
> cloghan wrote on Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:04:55 -0700:
>
> > Finally a decent post out of you!!! Congrads!!!!
> >
> > A study of the origins and subsequent variations on the theme involving
> > Wicca and Neo-Druidry does show clearly that they are both fanciful
> > eclectic concoctions, subject to oft ulterior motives..
>
> Agreed. Though I don't know enough about neo-Druidism to know what those
> "ulterior motives" might have been.
Some want to make it into a business by creating mail order druidry courses or
holding gatherings and charging for entrance at the door, others want to make
it exclusively into a gay men's religion while others see it as a way to gain
personal recognition.
Guess I am just too altruistic and idealistic. The years I spent as a student
taught me these unpopular virtues.
>
>
> > There are also the Mediterranean, Hebrew and Christian influences on
> > Wicca and Neo-Druidry to consider.
>
> This is one large issue I take with "strict reconstructionists" who try to
> remove Christian influences on Celtic myth - it's nigh-impossible to do
> so, and it denies the evolution of the Celtic culture in the Christian
> Era.
I for one, do not consider myself to be a reconstructionist in any way, shape
or form. I do however think Druidry should be a heathen way to the bone.
Eclectic Druidry would be an insult to both Druidry and Christianity. Just my
unworthy opinion.
>
>
> > Now stop addressing people in your condescending, better than thou way
> > and you might be of some value around here.
>
> I don't know why you take my tone to be condescending. I speak my mind,
> and I do it in a manner that is as concise and precise as I can be. And,
> in the manner of more formal debate, I state opinion as fact unless it is
> not obvious that I'm stating opinion.
>
> > One thing you need to learn about the Irish, when you talk down your
> > nose at them they are liable to rap you in the snot locker just for the
> > fun of it. No offense meant!
>
> No offense taken. I'm also learning that, if you're a sample of Irish
> blood, the Irish will frequently assume that someone is talking down their
> nose at them; regardless of the accuracy of that assumption.
Actually I am Irish and American Indian. Both cultures have had their fill of
being over run by
folks thinking they are so much better and wiser than us.
clo...@softcom.net
You best not be directing that remark at me!!! I believe in equal rights. Enough
said?
Jim
Kevin Jones
Again, what the Classical and Hellenistic Greeks were doing is not relevant
to the cultural practices of the Neolithic and Bronze Age groups in England
who predated them by several thousand years. You have to demonstrate the
link before making deductions.
Lad, I'm tired of this. You are probably the most ill-educated,
closed-minded gross ignoramus that I have had the misfortune to run across.
You are, to use an Irish expression, ignorant of everything except your own
opinions. You might like to have a look at the following web pages. The
first is written by a gentleman from the School of Cosmic Physics, Dublin
Institute for Advanced Studies:
http://www.carrowkeel.com/files/articles/tomray.html
http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/roofbox.htm
The first article remarks that the first light axis corresponds, within 5'
(minutes of arc), to midwinter sunrise 5150 years ago. In short, there has
been no massive shift of the sunrise positions as you state. As you will
note from the second site the sun's position at sunrise, winter solstice
3101 BCE is within a 0.2 degrees of the sunrise position at the winter
solstice 2001 CE. This model is based on observations and a mathematical
model of the sun's movement based on those observations. Since Newgrange is
approximately 1000 years earlier than Stonehenge both articles, while
concurring with each other, directly contradict your contention that the sun
is now out by 30 degrees from where it was at the solstices when Stonehenge
was constructed. In short, you are talking complete hogwash and would be
hard pressed to fill the head of a pin with your knowledge of astronomy.
Similarly your opinions on archaeology amount to little more than fantasy,
speculation, wishful thinking and balderdash; and that's from someone who is
academically qualified in the field.
Come back when you know what you're talking about. In the meantime, this
conversation is at a close. It is, to paraphrase the Triads, pointless to be
bandying words with a fool.
Kevin
Agamemnon
You have to demonstrate that there is a better alternative before dismissing
mine.
So the sun might have shined down the shaft or the shadow fallen on the heal
stone on midsummer's day 5000/4000 years ago but what use was this. There
has been a massive shift of the position of the earths orbit and the
orientation of the earths tilt with respect to the constellations which
makes Stonehenge completely useless as a calculator.
> note from the second site the sun's position at sunrise, winter solstice
> 3101 BCE is within a 0.2 degrees of the sunrise position at the winter
> solstice 2001 CE. This model is based on observations and a mathematical
> model of the sun's movement based on those observations. Since Newgrange
is
> approximately 1000 years earlier than Stonehenge both articles, while
> concurring with each other, directly contradict your contention that the
sun
NO THEY DON'T.
IRRELEVANT CALCULATION.
> is now out by 30 degrees from where it was at the solstices when
Stonehenge
56 degrees out if you don't mind. The original 30 degrees estimate was a
guess.
> was constructed. In short, you are talking complete hogwash and would be
> hard pressed to fill the head of a pin with your knowledge of astronomy.
> Similarly your opinions on archaeology amount to little more than fantasy,
> speculation, wishful thinking and balderdash; and that's from someone who
is
> academically qualified in the field.
POPPYCOCK.
Stonehenge serves no viable use as a calendar predictor. By the time it was
completed it was already out of alignment with the constellations on the day
it was started.
It would have been of no use in compiling astronomical tables for sailors or
latitude charts and compass charts for them either so what other purpose
could it have served.
Newgrange give the best clue as to what it is and that is that it was a
burial site marker or a memorial of some kind.
>
> Come back when you know what you're talking about. In the meantime, this
> conversation is at a close. It is, to paraphrase the Triads, pointless to
be
> bandying words with a fool.
GET AN EDUCATION YOU IGNORAMUS.
What use would Stonehenge have been when all it does is tell you the day of
the summer solstice which you can work out far more easily in other ways. It
is useless for predicting the calendar, time or astronomical events so the
only purpose it could have served is as a memorial to something that
occurred on midsummer's day
>
> Kevin
>
>
Nori Otaku
>
>
> Nori Otaku wrote:
>
>> cloghan wrote on Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:04:55 -0700:
>>
>> > Finally a decent post out of you!!! Congrads!!!!
>> >
>> > A study of the origins and subsequent variations on the theme
>> > involving Wicca and Neo-Druidry does show clearly that they are both
>> > fanciful eclectic concoctions, subject to oft ulterior motives..
>>
>> Agreed. Though I don't know enough about neo-Druidism to know what
>> those "ulterior motives" might have been.
>
> Some want to make it into a business by creating mail order druidry
> courses or holding gatherings and charging for entrance at the door,
> others want to make it exclusively into a gay men's religion while others
> see it as a way to gain personal recognition.
I don't see an inherent problem in offering Druidic teachings through the
mail. Unless, of course, it's a bit of a "Become a DRUID in 12 easy
steps!" kind of thing. I don't even see a problem with charging a modest
fee - one should get paid for whatever work they do, religious or no.
> Guess I am just too altruistic and idealistic. The years I spent as a
> student taught me these unpopular virtues.
Altruism is valuable, but it can't (and shouldn't) be forced on others.
If people sell Druidry, they are despicable - but if they sell Druidic
materials or services, I see no harm.
>> > There are also the Mediterranean, Hebrew and Christian influences on
>> > Wicca and Neo-Druidry to consider.
>>
>> This is one large issue I take with "strict reconstructionists" who try
>> to remove Christian influences on Celtic myth - it's nigh-impossible to
>> do so, and it denies the evolution of the Celtic culture in the
>> Christian Era.
>
> I for one, do not consider myself to be a reconstructionist in any way,
> shape or form. I do however think Druidry should be a heathen way to the
> bone. Eclectic Druidry would be an insult to both Druidry and
> Christianity. Just my unworthy opinion.
Surprisingly, I agree with you - if people try to practice two religions,
they are insulting them both; especially if those religions are inimical
to one another. However, that's a far cry from removing every Christian
influence on Druidry. A quick survey of Celtic history (what little we
know with reasonable certainty) shows that the Celts quickly absorbed,
improved upon, and adapted to new cultural influences; removing every
trace of the Christian influence denies that part of Celtic culture.
I should note, though, that practicing Druidry influenced by Christianity
is a bit different from practicing Christianity that absorbed Celtic ideas.
Nori Otaku
>
> "Nori Otaku" <nori_...@yahoo.spam> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.10.22....@noriotaku.usenet...
>
>> No offense taken. I'm also learning that, if you're a sample of Irish
>> blood, the Irish will frequently assume that someone is talking down
>> their nose at them; regardless of the accuracy of that assumption.
>
> I would suggest we not generalize about people's nationalities,
If you read carefully, you'll see I didn't.
Nori Otaku
>
> "Nori Otaku" <nori_...@yahoo.spam> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.10.22....@noriotaku.usenet...
>> Agamemnon wrote on Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:48:57 +0100:
>>
>> > The ancient farmers of 10,000 BC knew about the seasons and when to
> plant
>> > their corps and that it took 9 months for a baby to be born from
>> > conception so they did not need fertility objects.
>>
>> Explain why modern religions continue to utilize fertility objects,
>> despite advanced scientific knowledge of agriculture and human life
> cycles?
>
> LOL..... LOL..... LOL.....
>
> Which fertility objects would these be ?
Oh, gee, how 'bout the easy one: Easter eggs! Or steeples, or wedding
bells in pairs...
>> Saying "oh, they had some knowledge based on observation, so they
>> couldn't have used fertility objects" is both fallacious and foolish.
>
> Concluding something whose meaning in an ancient Mystery cult you don't
> know about is a fertility object in modern religion is both fallacious and
> foolish.
I made no conclusions. I merely pointed out the fallacy of *your*
conclusion. Assuming something cannot have fertility symbolism because a
culture understood basic science regarding fertile processes is a
fallacious conclusion based on ill-formed logic.
Agamemnon
"Nori Otaku" <nori_...@yahoo.spam> wrote in message
> Agamemnon wrote on Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:18:28 +0100:
>
> >
> > "Nori Otaku" <nori_...@yahoo.spam> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.10.22....@noriotaku.usenet...
> >> Agamemnon wrote on Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:48:57 +0100:
> >>
> >> > The ancient farmers of 10,000 BC knew about the seasons and when to
> > plant
> >> > their corps and that it took 9 months for a baby to be born from
> >> > conception so they did not need fertility objects.
> >>
> >> Explain why modern religions continue to utilize fertility objects,
> >> despite advanced scientific knowledge of agriculture and human life
> > cycles?
> >
> > LOL..... LOL..... LOL.....
> >
> > Which fertility objects would these be ?
>
> Oh, gee, how 'bout the easy one: Easter eggs! Or steeples, or wedding
> bells in pairs...
LOL...... LOL...... LOL.......
Steeples..... Are you serious or crazy. Wedding bells in pairs.... What are
they supposed to represent..... Ohhhhh... I know.... LOL..... And easter
eggs..... HA.... You do know that hens do not need to have sex in order to
produce eggs don't you ?
>
> >> Saying "oh, they had some knowledge based on observation, so they
> >> couldn't have used fertility objects" is both fallacious and foolish.
> >
> > Concluding something whose meaning in an ancient Mystery cult you don't
> > know about is a fertility object in modern religion is both fallacious
and
> > foolish.
>
> I made no conclusions. I merely pointed out the fallacy of *your*
> conclusion. Assuming something cannot have fertility symbolism because a
> culture understood basic science regarding fertile processes is a
> fallacious conclusion based on ill-formed logic.
TWADDLE. Assuming something is a fertility object because you don't know
what it really was used for is fallacious. Do great apes use fertility
objects. Do dolphins use them ?
Lets start of with the most obvious, the Phallus an lets see where it really
came from.
Typhon is supposed to have dismembered Osiris and scattered his parts all
over the world and then Isis collected them but found that the phallus was
swallowed by a fish so she made an artificial one to go in its place when
she reconstructed Osirs and had the phallus worshiped as a God. Why I hear
you ask.... Because the Osirs cult was a cult of female masturbation, just
like the orgies of Dionysus. When Pentheus witnessed the orgies of Dionysus
he was torn to pieces by the women.
And to answer the question about great apes and dolphins, the answer is no
but they do use masturbation aids !!!
clo...@softcom.net
Nori Otaku wrote:
> cloghan wrote on Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:59:08 -0700:
>
> >
> >
> > Nori Otaku wrote:
> >
> >> cloghan wrote on Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:04:55 -0700:
> >>
> >> > Finally a decent post out of you!!! Congrads!!!!
> >> >
> >> > A study of the origins and subsequent variations on the theme
> >> > involving Wicca and Neo-Druidry does show clearly that they are both
> >> > fanciful eclectic concoctions, subject to oft ulterior motives..
> >>
> >> Agreed. Though I don't know enough about neo-Druidism to know what
> >> those "ulterior motives" might have been.
> >
> > Some want to make it into a business by creating mail order druidry
> > courses or holding gatherings and charging for entrance at the door,
> > others want to make it exclusively into a gay men's religion while others
> > see it as a way to gain personal recognition.
>
> I don't see an inherent problem in offering Druidic teachings through the
> mail. Unless, of course, it's a bit of a "Become a DRUID in 12 easy
> steps!" kind of thing. I don't even see a problem with charging a modest
> fee - one should get paid for whatever work they do, religious or no.
My beliefs regarding this matter are a product of the traditions I myself have
come out of. I was taught orally lip to ear and nothing was typeset. Also
nothing was ever charged for, as that was seen to be profane. On top of that
the qualifying criterion for becoming a student was not the ability to write a
check. :-) Different time and different place.
>
>
> > Guess I am just too altruistic and idealistic. The years I spent as a
> > student taught me these unpopular virtues.
>
> Altruism is valuable, but it can't (and shouldn't) be forced on others.
> If people sell Druidry, they are despicable - but if they sell Druidic
> materials or services, I see no harm.
I for one would never but never sell teachings or services. I would never sell
natural or raw materials given to me by nature. I would sell paraphernalia that
I had constructed, but one would have to seek me out, as I believe it wrong to
advertise. Times have changed!
>
>
> >> > There are also the Mediterranean, Hebrew and Christian influences on
> >> > Wicca and Neo-Druidry to consider.
> >>
> >> This is one large issue I take with "strict reconstructionists" who try
> >> to remove Christian influences on Celtic myth - it's nigh-impossible to
> >> do so, and it denies the evolution of the Celtic culture in the
> >> Christian Era.
> >
> > I for one, do not consider myself to be a reconstructionist in any way,
> > shape or form. I do however think Druidry should be a heathen way to the
> > bone. Eclectic Druidry would be an insult to both Druidry and
> > Christianity. Just my unworthy opinion.
>
> Surprisingly, I agree with you - if people try to practice two religions,
> they are insulting them both; especially if those religions are inimical
> to one another. However, that's a far cry from removing every Christian
> influence on Druidry. A quick survey of Celtic history (what little we
> know with reasonable certainty) shows that the Celts quickly absorbed,
> improved upon, and adapted to new cultural influences; removing every
> trace of the Christian influence denies that part of Celtic culture.
I for one have a cutoff line. Nothing Christian!!!!!!! East is east and west is
west and never the trains shall meet.
Nori Otaku
> LOL...... LOL...... LOL.......
>
> Steeples..... Are you serious or crazy. Wedding bells in pairs.... What
> are they supposed to represent..... Ohhhhh... I know.... LOL..... And
> easter eggs..... HA.... You do know that hens do not need to have sex in
> order to produce eggs don't you ?
Steeples are phalli - at least, that's where they decend from. Pairs of
wedding bells are symbolic of testicles - that symbolism is pre-Christian.
Easter eggs, if you'll recall, don't come from hens but rabbits. We use
hen eggs to *symbolize* the fictional/mythical "rabbit egg"; both the
rabbit and the egg (in general) are fertility symbols.
> TWADDLE. Assuming something is a fertility object because you don't know
> what it really was used for is fallacious. Do great apes use fertility
> objects. Do dolphins use them ?
I made no assumptions. The examples of objects I gave have *mounds* of
historical documentation supporting their fertility-object descents.
As for the other items, I didn't say that any particular object was or
was not a fertility-symbol. I just said that you can't rule it out based
on "well, they knew how fertility worked, so they would have no use for
any fertility symbols."
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Agamemnon wrote on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:43:43 +0100:
>
>> LOL...... LOL...... LOL.......
>>
>> Steeples..... Are you serious or crazy. Wedding bells in pairs.... What
>> are they supposed to represent..... Ohhhhh... I know.... LOL..... And
>> easter eggs..... HA.... You do know that hens do not need to have sex in
>> order to produce eggs don't you ?
>
>Steeples are phalli - at least, that's where they decend from.
With respect - RUBBISH.
Churches needed towers to hang bells. Many old churches were also
fortified to protect the villagers in the event of marauders. For
these reasons it was common for churches to have towers.
Towers get rained upon. For this reason towers often have a roof. Many
castle towers have conical roofs and these early became an
architectural feature. Even if the village did not have a big church
it could build an imposing church by building an imposing roof.
>Pairs of
>wedding bells are symbolic of testicles - that symbolism is pre-Christian.
>
>Easter eggs, if you'll recall, don't come from hens but rabbits. We use
>hen eggs to *symbolize* the fictional/mythical "rabbit egg"; both the
>rabbit and the egg (in general) are fertility symbols.
>
>> TWADDLE. Assuming something is a fertility object because you don't know
>> what it really was used for is fallacious. Do great apes use fertility
>> objects. Do dolphins use them ?
>
>I made no assumptions. The examples of objects I gave have *mounds* of
>historical documentation supporting their fertility-object descents.
>
>As for the other items, I didn't say that any particular object was or
>was not a fertility-symbol. I just said that you can't rule it out based
>on "well, they knew how fertility worked, so they would have no use for
>any fertility symbols."
Eric Stevens
Odysseus
>
> [1] The tropical year is 365.2425 days in length. The name comes from the
> Greek term tropoi, or 'turning point'. It is defined as two successive
> passages of the Mean Sun at the Mean Vernal Equinox (Neugebauer 1975, 60
> n.2, 1082). However, in antiquity it was defined as the period of time
> between two successive solstices (Neugebauer 1975, 293).
>
only an approximation (albeit a pretty good one) to the true length
of the tropical year, which is just under 365.2422 days.
--
Odysseus
Nori Otaku
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:14:07 -0500, Nori Otaku <nori_...@yahoo.spam>
> wrote:
>>Steeples are phalli - at least, that's where they decend from.
>
> With respect - RUBBISH.
>
> Churches needed towers to hang bells. Many old churches were also
> fortified to protect the villagers in the event of marauders. For these
> reasons it was common for churches to have towers.
>
> Towers get rained upon. For this reason towers often have a roof. Many
> castle towers have conical roofs and these early became an architectural
> feature. Even if the village did not have a big church it could build an
> imposing church by building an imposing roof.
A tower is not needed to hang bells upon. However, the very existence of
church bells probably descends from either a fertility symbology or a
sacrificial ritual use in Caanan - there seems to be a scholarly division
on that one.
Towers as fortification I'd believe, except that when churches began
having steeples, the Church in power would not let someone use a tower for
the only practical reason: to shoot arrows from. The Church was not built
for the purpose of fortification until much later, after it's solid
construction (intended to endure time's ravages) proved useful to raided
towns.
However, the vast majority of old Churches are *horrible* fortifications -
as evidenced by the many who died inside them through burning or
suffocation tactics.
The steeple as the belltower and entrance to the church descends most
probably from ancient "sacred towers" in many pagan traditions; these are
closely identified with fertility worship.
It should also be pointed out that just because an object is a "fertility
object" doesn't necessarily imply that it was used to *promote* fertility;
there are cases where they were used to *celebrate* or *give thanks* for
fertility.
Kevin Jones
news:3F9B0736...@yahoo-dot.ca...
Oh well. I was going from Neugebauer, rather than measuring it myself, since
he's pretty much a leading work for ancient astronomical texts. :-) Still
the context from which it was originally taken (i.e. before it wound up in a
post) is that a calendar has to deal in a whole number of days, whereas the
year itself does not consist of whole days, so mathematical approximations
are necessary in constructing a calendar. As far as the post was concerned,
I was disagreeing with Agamemnon's assertion that you just needed to watch
the leaves falling off the trees to know when the year ended. Since the
leaves can fall off the trees here anytime between September and November,
depending on the climate, you'd have a year that could be out by as much as
an entire quarter. This year they're still on the trees - some are only just
turning, which is a good month later than when I was younger. By the looks
of things, they may still be on the trees in mid-November; that's been known
before. There was one year where some were still on the trees throughout the
winter - but we didn't really have a winter that year, just an autumn that
continued straight into spring. Didn't even really get cold. Now that would
really screw up a 'leaves falling off the trees' year.
Anyway, should the work ever get into print, I'll correct it. Works out at
about 26 seconds discrepancy, BTW, which would not have been detectable by
the technology back then.
Kevin
Agamemnon
"Nori Otaku" <nori_...@yahoo.spam> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.25...@noriotaku.usenet...
>
> > On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:14:07 -0500, Nori Otaku <nori_...@yahoo.spam>
> > wrote:
> >>Steeples are phalli - at least, that's where they decend from.
> >
> > With respect - RUBBISH.
> >
> > Churches needed towers to hang bells. Many old churches were also
> > fortified to protect the villagers in the event of marauders. For these
> > reasons it was common for churches to have towers.
> >
> > Towers get rained upon. For this reason towers often have a roof. Many
> > castle towers have conical roofs and these early became an architectural
> > feature. Even if the village did not have a big church it could build an
> > imposing church by building an imposing roof.
>
> A tower is not needed to hang bells upon. However, the very existence of
> church bells probably descends from either a fertility symbology or a
> sacrificial ritual use in Caanan - there seems to be a scholarly division
> on that one.
POPPYCOCK.
Bells were used as a means of signalling and identification. And apart for
music they served no other purpose. I ate out of the drum, and drank out of
the cymbal, I danced the kernopioria, I slipped into the bridal-chamber.
>
> Towers as fortification I'd believe, except that when churches began
> having steeples, the Church in power would not let someone use a tower for
> the only practical reason: to shoot arrows from. The Church was not built
> for the purpose of fortification until much later, after it's solid
> construction (intended to endure time's ravages) proved useful to raided
> towns.
>
> However, the vast majority of old Churches are *horrible* fortifications -
> as evidenced by the many who died inside them through burning or
> suffocation tactics.
>
> The steeple as the belltower and entrance to the church descends most
> probably from ancient "sacred towers" in many pagan traditions; these are
> closely identified with fertility worship.
You can't be serious. There are no such traditions.
Kevin Jones
> Agamemnon wrote on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:43:43 +0100:
>
> > LOL...... LOL...... LOL.......
> >
> > Steeples..... Are you serious or crazy. Wedding bells in pairs.... What
> > are they supposed to represent..... Ohhhhh... I know.... LOL..... And
> > easter eggs..... HA.... You do know that hens do not need to have sex in
> > order to produce eggs don't you ?
>
> Steeples are phalli - at least, that's where they decend from. Pairs of
> wedding bells are symbolic of testicles - that symbolism is pre-Christian.
>
> Easter eggs, if you'll recall, don't come from hens but rabbits. We use
> hen eggs to *symbolize* the fictional/mythical "rabbit egg"; both the
> rabbit and the egg (in general) are fertility symbols.
>
> > TWADDLE. Assuming something is a fertility object because you don't know
> > what it really was used for is fallacious. Do great apes use fertility
> > objects. Do dolphins use them ?
Do great apes build cities? Do dolphins build and fly aircraft?
Kevin
Agamemnon
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bnmg5a$9u3$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> writes:
>
> >"Lisa Spangenberg" <lisaspa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >> In all seriousness, and speaking as someone who took astronomy classes
> >> in England, artificial aid helps--and a nice large ritual center that
is
>
> >You took astronomy classes. Well I can trump that one. I was internal
> >secretary of my universities Astro-Soc.
>
> Ah, that explains how you manage to know so much of the jargon of
> astronomy without having the slightest clue how it works. Presumably
> you couldn't actually get into the classes because of the mathematics
> requirement.
I sat and passed 3rd year Astro Physics. What did you do.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
>