-Caveat Lector-
>Is 'Merlin Stone' a pagan/Wiccan himself by any chance?
Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, it�s irrelevant.
What is relevant is that she�s a historian with a strong background in
archeology and presents a good case well.
But you wouldn�t know that, because you didn�t bothered to read what she
had to say before you started to talk about it.
>His name certainly sounds like he is.
Irrelevant. My name sounds like a lake monster. Does this mean I have
flippers?
>Whether ancient Greek/Roman sects survived the millennia is quite
legitimate, such as research into the Templars theology. However there
are written records, documents, sites, memoirs etc to work with.
And your own life? Has it been written down? No? Why should I believe
you exist, then, or that anything you say is true?
Just because something is written down does not in and of itself mean it
is true. Just because something is not written down does not, in and of
itself, mean it is not true.
In addition to written records we must consider oral tradition and the
physical evidence in the archeological record. But you would know this
if you had bothered to read Stone and Gimbutas before you started
spouting off about their work. You haven�t even bothered to look at the
pictures. Yet you are telling what is and is not contained there. Can
you even imagine how incredibly stupid this make you look?
>The wiccans have nil in the way of evidence.
Perhaps they do. Perhaps they do not. Either way, you don�t know because
you have not examined what is purported to be the evidence in question.
If you had examined the purported evidence you would perhaps be able to
rebut it a piece at a time. Or perhaps you wouldn�t. But you don�t even
know what the purported evidence is, let alone whether its real or not,
and if it is, whether their interpretation of it is is valid. This is
appalling scholarship on your part. You have a lot of nerve criticizing
anybody else�s scholarship at all, especially in a field with which you
are so obviously unfamiliar.
Maybe you�re right. Maybe Stone, Gimbutas, et al are totally wrong. But
maybe you�re wrong. Either way, you�re guessing. That�s not how scholars
do it. Scholars do not draw conclusions out of thin air, just to suit
some preconceived notion that have. Scholars at the very least read the
literature in field before they draw even the most tentative
conclusions, let alone spout off about them in public. The very best
scholars do their own field research, gather empirical data themselves,
and draw conclusions from that. Gimbutas dug all her life. Have you ever
been on a dig? I doubt it sincerely. You never even bothered to read the
literature. You apparently never even did a preliminary lit. search. And
yet you�re telling us about archeology just as if you actually expected
us to assume that you know what you�re talking about. What is the matter
with you? Do you take us for fools?
You must. You read, by your own admission, a part of a book by Gardner,
you don�t even know Merlin Stone�s gender, and yet you expect us to
believe you know enough about the history of Goddess worship as to be
qualified to pass judgment on scholars in the field. Do you even know
what the word �scholarship� means?
>But how do you know they didn't do so at some point during the last
2,000 years?
Because I bothered to research the subject before I started talking
about it. This is the preferred technique. It doesn�t always work. But
usually it does, and no other technique works ever.
>Religion has always been defined by the structures they build, and the
texts they write. The Wiccans have neither.
Some religions are defined by the structures they build, and the texts
they write. Others are not. Some religions are practiced by peoples who
neither build nor write. Others still are practiced by people who both
build and write, but not within the context of their religion.
You are apparently only familiar with a handful of religions. There are
hundreds of religions. They vary considerably. I suggest that you read
up on the subject. Take a couple courses if you have to. Familiarize
yourself with the subject thoroughly enough as to not to appall us with
your ignorance. Then come back here and tell us about it. I cannot
stress too strongly the importance of doing these things in the correct
order. First learn. Then teach. That�s how it�s done.
>No latin or greek books on the subject.
This is quite simply untrue. There are numerous books on both the
history and dogma of polytheism written in both Latin and Greek. It
appears to have been a favored subject. If you read neither language,
avail yourself of these works in translation. They are available at any
library. If you can�t find them, ask the guy at the desk for help.
That�s what he�s paid for.
>Like all religions, the adherents have blind faith, and this is one
aspect of it.
This is also irrelevant. It doesn�t matter why people believe something
is true, or even if they believe. Nor does it matter why people
disbelieve. It is true or it is not true solely on its own merit. The
only scientific way to determine that merit is by analyzing the
empirical data.
My personal opinion is that some of what they believe is true, some of
it is not and the rest I don�t know about. My personal prejudice tends
toward physical evidence, written evidence, and oral history, in that
order. There�s a ton of both physical and written evidence for
polytheism in antiquity. Some of the physical evidence dates back far,
far beyond writing. How to interpret it is another matter. There is less
evidence for the continuity of polytheism in Europe. Most, but not all,
of it is oral. But outside of Europe, i.e., out from under the heel of
Christian oppression, and the evidence of polytheism�s continuity of
overwhelming. Whether or not Wicca is an example of the continuity of
one branch of polytheism in Europe has not been proven conclusively, at
least not to my satisfaction. But neither has it been disproven. It
certainly predates Gardner.
>I didn't say she has been 'discredited'
No, no, no. I�m the one who said she has been discredited, not you.
Really. Check your notes. You are taking notes, aren�t you. You should.
It�s important to develop good study habits if you ever hope to become a
real scholar.
>but most scholars agree that her conclusions are dubious.
They are, but not because most scholars agree they are. They are dubious
because they were drawn from insufficient data. Subsequent data has shed
more light. This is common in research.
>In any case, didn't Gardner claim he got most of his information from
his Grandmother? (I have his book somewhere, I never fully read it
though.)
What he said is not relevant to when he said it. In the chronology of
writings on the subject, Gardner came along rather late, especially for
a guy who people say started it all. How much of what he said is
actually true, is separate subject.
>>We are not discussing Wiccans or their beliefs. We are discussing the
work of the scholars who study them. It's a different subject.
>I don't know what thread you are following, but this one was in
response to the document
By definition, that document IS scholarship on the subject. It�s just
not very good scholarship, that�s all. On the point of Gardner�s place
in the chronology, it is very shoddy scholarship indeed.
>on wiccan pseudo-history, which is all about the beliefs of wiccans
trying to be passed off as legitimate history.
No, it is not. It is about SOME of the beliefs which certain people
CLAIM wiccans are �passing off� as legitimate history. Other Wiccan
beliefs are not addressed at all by this article. �Passing off� is a
non nobjective term. It�s use betrays non objectivity on the part of
whoever uses it.
As for �legitimate� history vs. �pseudo-history,� well, opinions vary.
History tends to be the propaganda of victors. It is extremely difficult
to determine from accounts what actually happened, even as recently as
yesterday.
>I'm sure that 90% or more of the 'scholars' who research this area are
themselves Wiccan or assorted pagans,
No, you are not sure. You are assuming. You can�t be sure because you
haven�t read them all. Again, you are talking about things you don�t
know about. You really should give it up. It�s making you look bad.
I could just as easily assume that a given percent of the �scholars� who
refute them are monotheists. It would be a good guess. But it is a
guess and nothing more. It is also not relevant. Scholarship stands on
its own merit or it does not stand at all. The individual scholar�s
religion, or anything else about them, is not relevant. Again, that
merit can only be determined by analysis of the empirical data. If the
evidence proves something is true, it does not matter who presented the
evidence or what else the believe.
Personally, I think only atheists who can write objectively about any
topic even remotely related to religion. Believers, by their very
nature, are incapable of objective reasoning on the topic of religion.
Most believers, yourself included, demonstrate a marked inability to
distinguish between the dogma of a religion and the history of its
practice. Wiccans believe in reincarnation. Whether they have believed
in reincarnation continuously since cave days or they began doing so in
the Fifties, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they
reincarnate, and vice versa. A case can be made either way on both
questions.
There are, however, fairly objective accounts of Christian history
written by practicing Christians. Muslim scholars also exist who write
objectively about the history of Islam. Etc. These people are rare,
though, and even they are incapable of objectivity about the dogma.
Nobody is objective about dogma. It isn�t possible.
Historical scholarship in the field of Wiccan history has improved
dramatically as research continues to accrue. Much early scholarship was
shoddy indeed. Primary sources were not relied upon nearly enough by
certain authors whose works sold well because of their talent as writers
and as self marketers. This has had unfortunate consequences. Many
misconceptions arose and were accepted by reading public without being
sufficiently verified. The reading public tends to not know how to
verify, or even that one should. For this we can thank government
schools.
A few decades ago many people even had trouble distinguishing the Great
Witch Hunt from the inquisition. The body count was greatly over
estimated even by authors like Arthur Evans who actually did work from
primary sources. It is a single, but glaring flaw in Evans� work. But
more recent work, especially that by David Kubrin, has rectified many of
the misconceptions and inaccuracies that had crept into the field. For
example, Kubrin�s research has reduced the body count estimate from a
long standing, but unsubstantiated, high of nine million, down to around
14,000 cases that have been found to have been documented in
contemporary court records. True, this is only what has been documented
so far. Only a fraction of the known court records have even been
studied, and new records are being uncovered on a regular basis. But it
is now clear, just from the records that have been studied, that the
estimate of nine million deaths is way, way, too high. There are
obviously more than 14,000 cases. Many more will surely be documented.
But nine million? No way.
But the quality of the research continues to improve, and more
importantly, as the pool of researchers working in the field increases
in size. So the body of evidence for continuity continues to grow. As
more gaps are filled in, the case becomes stronger.
I�m still not entirely convinced, and probably never will be. All
history is suspect, even yesterday�s news. Like I said, it�s mainly the
propaganda of victors. For fifteen hundred years the powers that be in
Europe, and later the New World, have done their level best to suppress
certain parts of history. This is one such part. That suppression has
taken the form of more than mere erasure. Distortion and outright lies
play prominent roles. There is an almost Heisenbergian limit to how much
detail we can recover from any field of history. In suppressed fields,
it quickly becomes the primary limiting factor. At some point it comes
down to who you believe.
That is, unless, you actually dig. Gimbutas actually dug. You didn�t
even read. So between the two of you, I�m much more inclined to believe
her. She, at least, is a scholar. You are merely a dilettante. Come back
when you are a scholar and then maybe I�ll believe you. At the least
then, I�ll take what you have to say seriously enough to be worth
considering. In the meantime, forget it. You�re simply unqualified. Go
back to school.
<A HREF!ttp://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
���CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
������������������������rchives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF!ttp://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF!ttp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
������������������������o subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send
email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
