Ronald Hutton's been served!

[MacMorrighan]

LOL... With all due respect to prof. Hutton I've always wanted to be able to say that to someone, regardless of whom. ;o)

Anyway, Hutton apparently wrote an article by the name of: What Did Happen To Lindow Man? Why Britain's best known bog burial can no longer be used as evidence for human sacrifice (http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/news/articles/TLS_LindowMan.pdf) on Friday, January 30, 2004. However, in a responce (http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/news/articles/Lindowresponse.pdf) to this article (on 7 February of the same year; I found these articles purely by accident, btw), one Dr. JD Hill, the curator for the British Museum's British and European Iron Age dept. responded in kind, stating that Hutton made a number of factual errors in his polemic, and was clearly 20 years behind the times and the latest research and evidence!

Hmmm...I wonder what latest research is being advanced (and by what scholars) concerning the theory that the bog bodies are likely evidence for Iron Age Sovereignty Rites?

Personally, I found Hill's responce very refreshing, and would like to thank him some how! After all, it still worries me that no professional scholars of whom I am aware have censured Hutton in any way for his methodological short-comings (that's being polite), or for his sentance structure that implies that he (Hutton) has an omniscient or exhaustive knowledge on a given subject, when, in fact he's simply wrong; or how he refuses to balance the equasion, if you will, by dismising without thought scholars that disagree with the British academic school of thought or institution [eg. Eva Pocs, among many others]; factual errors; how he is allowed to blatantly mischaracterize an author's thesis [eg, Prof. Carlo Ginzburg] as though what evidence Carlo presents isn't really what it means (in other words, he's misinterpreting Ginzburg); as well as refusing to ask some very impoirtant inquestions that should have been evident to him from the very beginning!

These are very important concerns of mine, and I believe that scholares should strive to acknowledge them, rather than being allowed to dismiss them as a result of being allowed to pick and choose what they percieve of (or are allowed to pervieve of) as "evidence".

Happy Holidays,
Wade

[Faol-chù]

LOL... With all due respect to prof. Hutton I've always wanted to be able to say that to someone, regardless of whom. ;o)

Anyway, Hutton apparently wrote an article by the name of: What Did Happen To Lindow Man? Why Britain's best known bog burial can no longer be used as evidence for human sacrifice (http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/news/articles/TLS_LindowMan.pdf) on Friday, January 30, 2004. However, in a responce (http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/news/articles/Lindowresponse.pdf) to this article (on 7 February of the same year; I found these articles purely by accident, btw), one Dr. JD Hill, the curator for the British Museum's British and European Iron Age dept. responded in kind, stating that Hutton made a number of factual errors in his polemic, and was clearly 20 years behind the times and the latest research and evidence!

Hmmm...I wonder what latest research is being advanced (and by what scholars) concerning the theory that the bog bodies are likely evidence for Iron Age Sovereignty Rites?

This idea is probably being advanced by, at least in part, scholars of Celtic Studies, who are fluent in at least one of the Celtic languages, as well as current and recorded tradition. To me, what we have of the tradition is pretty clear with regard to views of 'human sacrifice', even though we don't have the archaeological evidence (something recorded in writing by the hand of a Celt) to confirm it for certain.

This has been, all along one of my issues with Hutton...his ignorance of and/or his willingness to ignore the oral tradition in deference to archaeological or other "hard" evidence.
Apparently, to him, oral tradition is not "hard"...either that, or he's just ignorant of its importance in Celtic societies.

Thanks for posting that bit!

Le dùrachd,

[MacMorrighan]

This has been, all along one of my issues with Hutton...his ignorance of and/or his willingness to ignore the oral tradition in deference to archaeological or other "hard" evidence.
Apparently, to him, oral tradition is not "hard"...either that, or he's just ignorant of its importance in Celtic societies.

Thanks for posting that bit!

Le dùrachd,

You're very welcome! Yeah, that's one (of many) issues I have with Hutton! Anoher probem is how he almost tries to control the minds of the people (now, please, anyone reading this, do NOT take it to any extremes, and wait for me to finish my comment!) by ignoring modern research and scholars from continental Europe as though it doesn't exist! Hence, he is shaping and moulding their minds. And, in so doing, imparting upon them a cyniucal skepticism should they happen upon those scholars!

He notably does this with Eva Pocs. He refrains from listing her research at all in his texts (it took me years to hear about her otherwise!)

Though, many cynically skeptical Pagans are far too eagre to dimsiss such a problem on my part with an "Oh, he just disagrees with her, is all!" They proceed to make light of it all. Well, if he'd merely disagreed with her, he would have entered into a polemical debate with her research, but he didn't. All he could do was dismiss her as inconsequential when compared with his beloved British academia! Okay Wade, rant mode off! LOL...

Of course, it's myt other listed concerns that grieve me, as well.

Indeed, a great illustration of his refusal to admit certain questions on his part is his dismissal that divination was, in any way, a part of Samhain prctices. He says that the feble nature of the evidence should have been apparent from the start of the early scholars whom he is lambasting. However, I argue that the feeble nanture of his own polemic should have been evident from the start! After all, he does not take into account that many folk-traditions of divinations do not centre around survival (his main prompt for his cozy "Christian" conclusion), but love; they also chiefly included aspects of medieval mythological tracts, as well as folk-lore, such as the reliance upon augery or hazelnuts! Nor does he substantiate his conclusions with any evidence! However, as a "skeptical rationalist", merely because he is able to question something allows him to vindicate his thesis as the correct one by default. Sarcastically: After all, he's got a PhD.!

Take Care,
Wade

[_Banbha_]

[/FONT]

This idea is probably being advanced by, at least in part, scholars of Celtic Studies, who are fluent in at least one of the Celtic languages, as well as current and recorded tradition. To me, what we have of the tradition is pretty clear with regard to views of 'human sacrifice', even though we don't have the archaeological evidence (something recorded in writing by the hand of a Celt) to confirm it for certain.

This has been, all along one of my issues with Hutton...his ignorance of and/or his willingness to ignore the oral tradition in deference to archaeological or other "hard" evidence.
Apparently, to him, oral tradition is not "hard"...either that, or he's just ignorant of its importance in Celtic societies.

Thanks for posting that bit!

Le dùrachd,

I agree with you, Faol-chù. I would not take what Hutton writes on 'Celt' or IE culture seriously and would never think to reference him as a source in study of said cultures.

[MacMorrighan]

I agree with you, Faol-chù. I would not take what Hutton writes on 'Celt' or IE culture seriously and would never think to reference him as a source in study of said cultures.

You know,m back when I was first reading his The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles, I found it rather telling that (as I recall) he didn't address the corpus of I-E studies, not bring it into his conclusions.

However, while he did (on the extremely rare occassion...as in once or twice) do so in his The Stations of the Sun, it was usually with the extremely qualified caveat, "almost certainly not" (paraphrasing, of course).

And, as far as his infor. regarding the Celts (which many Pagans seem to quote verbatum, as though it's empirical fact, such as Jane Raeburn in her Celtic Wicca) he was not only reductionist in the extreme, as well as flat out wrong in some of his conclusions, he didn't state even once re: the long-standing belief amongst Celticists re: Celtic Sovereignty rituals as applied to Goddesses.

Although, this may be because he automaticlly rejected every theory as false and unacademic, save for when he supplanted his own in their place. I always thought that was hypocritical, myself...

[Carla O'Harris]

Thank you for posting this article (both here and on my list). It is an excellent article and corrective.

(As an aside, I don't know that I would be celebrating violent ritual murder in any case, but if it happened, we are entitled to know about it.)

[Faol-chù]

(As an aside, I don't know that I would be celebrating violent ritual murder in any case, but if it happened, we are entitled to know about it.)

At no point do I believe anyone here has 'celebrated' ritual murder.

The simple fact of the matter is that a lot of things 'fit' when that is taken into account.

Denying history just because you don't like it will NOT change it....Neither will acknowledging history make it 'the wave of the future' or anything of the sort.

You know...eventually it just may become clear to a lot of people that, not only was Christianity not the 'terrible scourge' it is often made out to be...but, in some ways, it probably brought some social changes that many of us would consider to be 'improvements'.

[Carla O'Harris]

It's rationality we have to thank, not Christianity as such. The Roman Empire banned human sacrifice.

[Faol-chù]

It's rationality we have to thank, not Christianity as such. The Roman Empire banned human sacrifice.

Ireland, nor most of Scotland was never part of 'The Roman Empire', and they eventually gave this up on their own...MOST LIKELY due to Christian influence.

[Nantonos]

Ireland, nor most of Scotland was never part of 'The Roman Empire',
Lindow Moss is in Cheshire - in England.

[Faol-chù]

Lindow Moss is in Cheshire - in England.

Yep...that's true...:)

[ap Dafydd]

It's rationality we have to thank, not Christianity as such. The Roman Empire banned human sacrifice.

Funnily enough, there's some evidence that the Romans actually practiced human sacrifice themselves.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/humanities/story/0,,480658,00.html

I don't have any more recent references on this but would be interested if anyone knows more!

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Faol-chù]

Funnily enough, there's some evidence that the Romans actually practiced human sacrifice themselves.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/humanities/story/0,,480658,00.html

I don't have any more recent references on this but would be interested if anyone knows more!

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

Veeeeeery interesting!

...So, I guess that brings us back to Christianity as the thing which likely ended it...:)

Thanks, Ffred!!

[_Banbha_]

Funnily enough, there's some evidence that the Romans actually practiced human sacrifice themselves.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/humanities/story/0,,480658,00.html

I don't have any more recent references on this but would be interested if anyone knows more!

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

That was a great article, very enlightening.

Rome was a long way from Britian and frankly, any prohibitions against sacrifice could have been just politics and lip service. I think there is plenty of evidence of Roman autrocities and double-talk with native Celts in Britian.

I personally don't embrace Christianity as saintly, just that it allowed no other religions, so there was less diversity. Since they happened to be against literal blood sacrifice, there was none. It was certainly still a political tool of a ruthless empire in any case.



And, as far as his infor. regarding the Celts (which many Pagans seem to quote verbatum, as though it's empirical fact, such as Jane Raeburn in her Celtic Wicca) he was not only reductionist in the extreme, as well as flat out wrong in some of his conclusions, he didn't state even once re: the long-standing belief amongst Celticists re: Celtic Sovereignty rituals as applied to Goddesses.

There is no accurate historical justification for "Celtic Wicca" and Raeburn acknowleges that it is modern system:
http://www.janeraeburn.com/celticwicca.html

And on the ethical use of history:
http://www.janeraeburn.com/celticwicca-history.html

I'm actually impressed with what I've read, though I do not agree with all she writes. I've never seen a Celtic Wiccan author who seems to respect and makes important distinctions with history in such a way. :)

I agree with Hutton's perspective on contemporary Wiccan history and folklore, as does Raeburn. It's when he goes further a field, I'll stick to the work of respected and proven Celtic scholars who can read texts in the original languages, for one thing.

I'm not denying what you said because I don't know what Raeburn has in her book about the history or how far she goes with Hutton. I can't comment further beyond what I've seen on her site. "Celtic Wicca" will never make sense to me personally; but I just find her persective refreshing and honest, compared to say... Edain McCoy.