|
Post by KaiAidan on Aug 6, 2004 22:09:12 GMT -5
The Question:
Does anyone know anything about her? I have read a lot about her, but never her books. She was an anthropologist from the early 20th century. I first heard of her from Raymond Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft. In this book he said that she was the first to publically speak out about how witchcraft was actually an ancient religion who worshipped a Goddess. And now, as I'm reading this biography of her, it seems that there is no mention of a Goddess, and that they only worshiped a Horned God. Raymond Buckland also said that Murray said that half the world 30,000 years ago, worshiped a Female divine figure. In this, it also mentions that she thought that the ancient neolithic witches had a lot of human sacrifice and canabalism. I know human sacrifice was very common in primitive societies, but canabalism? There are also many statements that discredit Murray and her works. And since Murray is 'are ground zero for the modern pagan revival', how can we be sure our belief system and history , was not just a crackpot theory? Murray has also been quoted in saying that she thought that the Sidhe/Fae were actually neandrathals!
I also remember reading a long time ago, that Murray thought that there was a Goddess first. (Which makes complete since in my head, as i would think most people would assume thier source was feminine, since a female gives birth). And after more ideas about procreation developed, a God was added. And that he became a hunting god, then later a god of agriculture. But other anthropologists, beg to differ and say that there was never any monotheism first, only polotheism. But does that even make since? Would people see many gods in nature or one source? I would assume that they saw the Mother first, and as time progressed saw the spirit of things in nature, and from that gods arose. (for example, a god of the stream, a god of the ocean, a god of the sky, ect).
Is any of this accurate? What is true of these statements? Was Buckland misinformed on Murray's works? Or are these biographies misinformed? Or did Murray change her thoeries over time? Most of these come from her book, "The Witch Cult in Western Europe". I know she wrote more over time.
And if Murray isn't a good source, what anthropologists can I rely on for good information that predate our belief system?
*********************************************
|
|
|
Post by KaiAidan on Aug 6, 2004 22:09:24 GMT -5
The Answer:
Margaret Murray
I've had this message sitting in my box for about a month now, and it is time to put it somewhere else. I have read the posts that answered this initially, and while you have been directed to other book sources, no
one as answered any of the questions you raised in yore first post.
This will be a fairly long post, so anyone not particularly interested in these questions should probably exit now...
I know very little about Murry herself, aside from what Buckland has to say about her. So I can not speak with 100% accuracy about what she might have believed vs what she is reported to have believed. But to answer your question about the Goddess and the Horned God, The Goddess pre-dated the God by some little time. The Neolithic cultures believed that all life sprang from the All Mother, as evidenced by The Venus of Willendorf figures supplied by archeological evidence. You are correct about the Mono/Polythism statement. Look at the World Mythologies. In virtually every Creation Myth there is first one Being, sometimes male sometimes female. This is the primordial Chaos that the God/dess seperated themself from to become a seperate Entity. Light arising from the great Dark. The Stranga says that this Light was the God being born from the Dark of Goddess. This analogy, whether it is Cronos arising from Chaos or Amon hatching from the Cosmic Egg isn't important, there are thousands of
variations on the Theme worldwide, so you can pretty much take your pick of them.
[It also mentions that she thought Neolithic witches had a lot of human sacrafice and canibalism. I know human sacrafice was very common in primitive society, but canibalism?]
Oh yes, definately. Human sacrafice to placate the gods, or to ensure the revitialization of the land was quite common until very recently (historically speaking). And canabilism was no different. In fact, it was quite common for one tribes warriors to feast on the enemy dead to absorbe their mojo, their magick and their strength. It was also a common belief that if you took the blood and flesh of a great leader, warrior, shaman (though this last was to gain his magick) you absorbed and gained those traits that they possessed into yourself and/or your tribe. Many Celtic tribes believed that the fertility of the Land was tied to the fertility of the King; if the king was barren, then the land would eventually become so as well. If he were a good king, he would sacrafice himself for the good of the Land. His blood would be sprinkled over the land to ensure the return of fertility. In fact, ritual canibalism is still being practiced today. Not in some remote Amazon or African tribe, but right here in good old modern America. Ask a Catholic sometime just what the Wine and host wafers do when you take them... Transubstancetion is the belief that one thing becomes another. In this instance, the wine and bread actually transform into the blood and body of christ. All those years of Priests trying to convert the poor heathen canibals... fancy that. Hypocrites.
[There are many statements that discredit Murry and her works.And since Murry is at 'ground zero for modern pagan revival', how can we be sure our belief system and history were not just a 'crackpot theory'?]
Of course there are many statements that discredit her works. If you disagree with a collegues throry in accadamia, then you try to discredit it and replace it with your own pet theory. Example: the Pyramids and the Sphinx-- I won't even get into this one, there are as many theories about them as there are egyptologists! No one in the professional Club wants to admit that there might be some other explaination than the "Traditional" one found in the textbooks. Murry was cutting edge in her day, and most tradational archeologists or anthropologists don't want to stray outside the bounds of what they have been taught for fear of being thrown out of the Club and never getting another Paper published. As for it being a 'crackpot theory', does it really matter if it is or not? Paganism today is not the Paganism of the past. Oh it has it's roots there, but it is not the same. Most of the history and all but a very few beliefs have been lost to us by the zeal of the christ priests in destroying as much of the Old Religion because it did not match their own. We have in essence, had to rewrite our own history, our own beliefs, our own rituals. The Egyptians and the Tibetian monks were two of only a handful of religions that actually wrote down any of their rituals. The rest was an oral tradation passed down from master to apprentice. The Celtic Druids did have a written language, but none of their Ritual was written down. The Native American Shamans had only oral tradition, no written language. Anything the Aztec, Myan or Toltec might have had in the way of written language, and they did keep records of their history in a sort of cross between pictograms and hieroglyphics, was destroyed by the Spanish. Several of their priests kept excellent journals and described with great satisfaction all of the beautiful artifacts that they destroyed as 'works of the devil'. So we have created our own present belief system and history and myth. That is all a religion-- any religion, is designed to do. We believe as we do because it works for us when we found 'Traditional' religion did not seem to work for us. That it does work is all that is important, not who is right and who is wrong. "If it works for you, it is real magick,"-- Issac Bonewitts
[Murry has also been quoted as saying that she thought that the Sidhe/fey were actually Neanderthals!]
Murry may have been quoted as saying that; she might even have believed it, but it is not true. The word Sidhe means "The Bright and Shinning Ones". I believe that the legends of the Sidhe, like all legends, have a basis in fact. As for them being Neanderthals... have you ever seen a reconstruction of a Neanderthal? It doesn't really fit my idea of the Sidhe. Fey, means wild or cunning... so it is possible that she might have been refering to this about the neanderthal. However, it must be pointed out that Neanderthals were a different species than Cro-mangon, which is indistinguishable from Homo Sapiens. Also, there is an anthro-archeological site in France that has found bones of both Neanderthal and H. Sapiens that date from the same time, with evidence of canabilism on the Neanderthal bones. (Discover Magazine, dated between 1998 and 2000).
[Are the biographies misinformed? Or did Murry change her theories over time?]
All scientets change their theories over time, look at five differet studies on whether eggs are good or bad for you! Five different answers in five years. Murry may have updated her theories as more evidence was published in her field. Or perhaps she recanted som of her erlier work in order to get her work published. Sometimes you gotta go along to get along, especially in accadamia.
Ok, that was nicely long-winded [and opinionated, but you know what they say about opinions...]. At any rate I hope this helps. I am an armchair-mythologist (someone that specializes in mythology), and I read lots of scientific articles. I also try to think outside the box, so while I have lots of trivia stored up about a lot of things, I'm not always an expert. This should give you some food for thought and point you in some interesting directions.
|
|