Modernization

[An Daghdha]

Where could I read more on the practices of 'Ancient Shamanism'?

I don't know what you mean by "ancient" in the statement, precisely.  Shamanism is in league with animism and other very old practices and it varies continent to continent and tribe to tribe, but has commonalities regardless of the title given to the practicianer.

I was referring to the statement which follows:

Much of ancient shamanism had to do with

Elsewhere in the thread I have seen claims of "Stone-age Shamanism", I am wondering where I can read more on these previously lost cultures and the practices of their priests?

Animism is a fundamental part of my own beliefs, this however does not make me a Shaman, much of my practice is ecstatic, this doesn't make a Shaman either, a Shaman has their own culture, their own practice, their own Deities, and their own philosophies surrounding those Deities which bare little if any similarity to Celtic, Native American, or any other culture outside of Siberia, I see no reason why I should pillage their culture and water it down into meaninglessness because I need some universal title, so I can claim my beliefs, practices and/or religion are rooted in the dawn of mankind.

A partial list of where my own grasp of shamanic practice is possible, unfortunately, some of my books have gone "borrowed-missing" including two by South African practicianers, and my copy of Mircea Eliade's book on the topic.

Looking at your list, I would advise firstly to look somewhere other than Wiccan authors to get your education of Tribal culture. First isn't there some endeavor to separate Eliade's work from Nazism or amoralism? That in and of it's self...I believe much of his work ranged from Christianity to Zoroastrianism.

On Hutton, well what can be said about that crack-pot, his mistranslation of Cerridwen made me snicker a bit I must say, coming from a so called Scholar, not to mention that he tells us that we know nothing of Pagan Europe...If this is true, then how does he know they were Shamans?

And Classical religion such as Greek and Roman are two of the least "Shamanistic" religions I know of. I would love to see the claims made in some of these books.

Anyway, I won't go through the whole list, none of these actually deflect from the argument that Shamanism is a Siberian practice, and culturally specific. What you have proven is that our western society will do and say about anything to appear ancient.

[Labrys]

You know, I feel rather sniped at here.  You want to do a semantic argument and brand authors as "Wiccan" to disparage my beginning point in this post? 

Adler may be Wiccan (or may not, for all I know), but she sure as heck did not only present Wiccan ideas in her book.  And the rest of the authors are not Wiccan.  I don't even think you read the entire post.

My beginning post was a small vent-rant about how silly I find it when people apply fluff instead of substance to anything regarding shamanic practice.  And yes, in spite of not being Siberian (tho' my practice resembles European models more than Amerindian models), I will use that word. Everyone knows what it means and I don't have to type in a hundred different titles that would be likewise (apparently offensively) specific to who and where.

And unless you have read the books, especially the ones on the beginning of Greek religion, you have no claims on whether or not they have to do with shamanism. 

I did not ask you to "educate" me on what shamanism is; my deities are sufficient for that, thank you. If you want a continued argument, you will have to go elsewhere because I merely find your attitude snippy and generally unedifying.

[Lark]

Is there not something to be said for 'living' the path? I get to watch the kids around here relive the 1st and 2nd battles of Moytura every Samhain,

Really?  In Rapid City, SD?  I didn't realize there was such an established population of Irish/Celtic Recons there.

As for Professor Hutton, I'd hardly call him a "crack pot".  You may disagree with his interpretations, but he remains a respected scholar who addresses the findings he encounters during his research in ways that make sense of the material.  In my experience those who disagree with him so violently do so because his findings do not fit into their preconceptions of the facts, or do not play to the scenario that they prefer.

I'll note that in the list of books that Labrys gave you there was only one book which could be considered Wiccan.  Many of us understand that looking in the Wiccan/Pagan section of the bookstore is not the best spot to find books on other traditions.  A couple of other books I'd suggest include:

"The Quest for the Shaman: Shape-Shifters, Sorcerers and Spirit Healers in Ancient Europe" by Miranda Aldhouse-Green and Stephen Aldhouse-Green

"Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, Cosmos, and the Realm of the Gods by David Lewis-Williams and David Pearce

"Shamanism and Northern Ecology (Religion and Society)" by Regional Conference on Circumpolar and Northern Religion and Juha Pentikainen 

"Shamanism in Siberia: Aboriginal Siberia, A Study in Social Anthropology" (Forgotten Books) by M. A. Czaplicka 

And if I might suggest, there are times when the tone of your posts gets to sounding very condescending towards other members on this board.  That might not be your intention so I thought I would call it to your attention since that approach is not one that we favor on this board.  Debate and discussion are great, we welcome them.  But let's keep the discussion a bit more civil.

-Lark-
 
 
 
 

 

[Labrys]

+++Shamanism and Northern Ecology (Religion and Society)" by Regional Conference on Circumpolar and Northern Religion and Juha Pentikainen +++

Oh, THAT is the title.  I had this, not in book form, but a print out someone lent me briefly; and I don't know where it went to, nor the notes I took.  I lost a few things when my grown daughter was lodged in the 'library' for some months once.  When she packed up and left...a lot of stuff not hers vanished.  (Including, most oddly, her dad's bow string!)

(edit) Oh, and I forgot, I got a new book, gift from my Nordic practicing son---"Nine Worlds of Seid Magic: Ecstasy & Neo-Shamanism in North European Paganism" that I am looking forward to tackling.  Working my way to it thru the book stack. 

I did locate a huge print-out from an online site on shamanism, got to find out if the website is still there, because the sheer amount of bibliography on the site was a wonderful reference. 

I also finished the reading of (Phil?) Hines' online volumes on current modern shamanic practice.  He was satisfyingly adept at modernizing concepts, and very pragmatic about it.  Not all of his stuff is really applicable to my own practice and needs, but all the same it was a nice viewpoint to take in.

Just off topic a bit...(watching books fall over)...I need more bookshelves.

[An Daghdha]

Really?  In Rapid City, SD?  I didn't realize there was such an established population of Irish/Celtic Recons there.

Oh yes indeed there are, we are a very Irish community, which mixes pretty well with the Lakota, right down to our Celtic shop down town. There are several Gaeilge speakers n everything...lol. However, they're not all Reconstructionist, some are real live immigrants.

As for Professor Hutton, I'd hardly call him a "crack pot".  You may disagree with his interpretations, but he remains a respected scholar who addresses the findings he encounters during his research in ways that make sense of the material.  In my experience those who disagree with him so violently do so because his findings do not fit into their preconceptions of the facts, or do not play to the scenario that they prefer

I would, and no one has addressed the question as to his statement on what we know about Pagan Europe. If 'we know nothing' of it, then how does he claim to know their practices? How does he profess to be a scholar of such things while he mistranslates simple, well established meanings such as Cerridwen as 'Crooked woman'? I have no preferences on facts, and I am not sure that I disagreed with anything or anyone 'violently'. He might be fine for the study of Wicca, but he isn't a source as far as tribal cultures go.

I'll note that in the list of books that Labrys gave you there was only one book which could be considered Wiccan.  Many of us understand that looking in the Wiccan/Pagan section of the bookstore is not the best spot to find books on other traditions.  A couple of other books I'd suggest include:

LoL, well it does go to the validity of the rest of the list doesn't it? I'm glad to hear of the places you don't go to look for books, though I don't really see where that comes into play here.

"The Quest for the Shaman: Shape-Shifters, Sorcerers and Spirit Healers in Ancient Europe" by Miranda Aldhouse-Green and Stephen Aldhouse-Green

Here's one I have read, yet again, keep in mind they are doing a SCIENTIFIC study, not teaching some ancient stone age practice. They're looking for proof of 'Shamanism' (see yet again the anthropological usage of the word discussed earlier)existed in Europe, and the Americas. They are discussing Shamanism from within the anthropological context, NOT hoping to pass on some universal religious new age crap.

"Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, Cosmos, and the Realm of the Gods by David Lewis-Williams and David Pearce

Again, lost cultures spring to mind, which means the book is speculation, which there is nothing wrong with, nothing is wrong with trying to understand what life MIGHT have been like during the meso and neolithic eras, but it is guess work based on evidence, and nothing more. Educated guess work at the very best.

"Shamanism and Northern Ecology (Religion and Society)" by Regional Conference on Circumpolar and Northern Religion and Juha Pentikainen

Right-O! Because Jung's ideas of Shamanism are exactly what we need to understand tribal culture throughout the world.

"Shamanism in Siberia: Aboriginal Siberia, A Study in Social Anthropology" (Forgotten Books) by M. A. Czaplicka

Well here's another book listed that understands Shamanism, judging by the lable. Yay! The point is, we know very little about any of the ancient Shamanistic or ecstatic cultures from which many of these people claim to be drawing. Guess work is fine up to a point.

Another note I will make is that not one of the titles listed makes the claim that any one single culture outside of Siberia is specifically 'Shamanic' in and of it's self. Native Americans were not Shamans, the nations were Shamanistic in nature, but again, they weren't Shamans, Celts weren't Shamans, etc. etc. Siberians were/are Shamans, Druidism for example is said by many modern scholars to have *similarities* with Hindu and Judaic religions, by the argument here, we should be calling them Brahmins and Rabbis. Like my friend Runs-from-lightening says - If it says "Shaman" on the title, stay the hell away from it.

And if I might suggest, there are times when the tone of your posts gets to sounding very condescending towards other members on this board.  That might not be your intention so I thought I would call it to your attention since that approach is not one that we favor on this board.  Debate and discussion are great, we welcome them.  But let's keep the discussion a bit more civil.

More so then than some of the other posts on this thread? Would you mind highlighting where exactly I have insulted anyone? I can read nearly an entire thread of people bashing reconstruction, so again I ask, where have I been less civil than anyone else? I mean hell:

Really?  In Rapid City, SD?  I didn't realize there was such an established population of Irish/Celtic Recons there.

Might not have been your intention, but if I didn't know better, I'd say you just came right out and called me a liar.

[An Daghdha]

  Adler may be Wiccan (or may not, for all I know), but she sure as heck did not only present Wiccan ideas in her book.  And the rest of the authors are not Wiccan.  I don't even think you read the entire post.

Oh I read it alright, as I said to Lark, it goes to the scholarship of the rest of the authors you cited.

My beginning post was a small vent-rant about how silly I find it when people apply fluff instead of substance to anything regarding shamanic practice.  And yes, in spite of not being Siberian (tho' my practice resembles European models more than Amerindian models), I will use that word. Everyone knows what it means and I don't have to type in a hundred different titles that would be likewise (apparently offensively) specific to who and where.

I can assure you I have taken nothing written here personally or taken offence, I am quite used to the "oh the big bad evil Recon" arguments. I even have come to find them somewhat entertaining. Well that is to say, until I see historical claims made, such as we are doing what Stone age Shamans did and the like.

And unless you have read the books, especially the ones on the beginning of Greek religion, you have no claims on whether or not they have to do with shamanism.

I don't recall saying that the titles you cited had nothing to do with 'Shamanism', you're putting words in my mouth, what I said was, Classical religions such as Greek and Roman religions were very un-animistic in structure. This however isn't to say that there was no animism or ecstatic nature to their early forms. I'm sure there was, but this doesn't make it 'Shamanism'. I am seriously starting to think you're just looking for something to take offence to.

I did not ask you to "educate" me on what shamanism is; my deities are sufficient for that, thank you. If you want a continued argument, you will have to go elsewhere because I merely find your attitude snippy and generally unedifying.

Well that was left field. Where did I mention your Gods or whether or not they are sufficient? I am not here to 'persecute' you. Why is it an insult to be told the terminology used might be somewhat off? Shamanism isn't some universal religious term, you admitted that, anything beyond it it simply wilful ignorance. You can call yourself a Shaman if it makes you feel good about the world around you, hell people tell me I'm not a Druid, and the Druids died out in the 5th to 7th centuries, no skin off my butt, but if you're going to pass on things that are historically inaccurate, OR attack a community you disagree with, be forewarned, someone just might have something to say about it.

I will leave this cockamamie thread at that.

[Labrys]

Oh I read it alright, as I said to Lark, it goes to the scholarship of the rest of the authors you cited.

So let me get this straight....if someone reads virtually everything they can lay hands on about a given topic, it makes irrelevant the good stuff if someone else has a criticism of part of the bibliography?  Wow.  That really is an amazing standard of dismissal you have there.

I can assure you I have taken nothing written here personally or taken offence, I am quite used to the "oh the big bad evil Recon" arguments. I even have come to find them somewhat entertaining. Well that is to say, until I see historical claims made, such as we are doing what Stone age Shamans did and the like.

Classifying you as the 'big bad recon' was the last thing on my mind.  What I was rather politely implying was a straw man argument you were making, acting as if I wasn't acknowledging the need for real history of any given practice simply because I said I find the same old "Guide the huntsmen." rhetoric extremely useless and boring.  I am saying the language used by many shaman-claimants is what they imagine stone age shamans may have done.  And saying it is a waste of time.

I don't recall saying that the titles you cited had nothing to do with 'Shamanism', you're putting words in my mouth, what I said was, Classical religions such as Greek and Roman religions were very un-animistic in structure. This however isn't to say that there was no animism or ecstatic nature to their early forms. I'm sure there was, but this doesn't make it 'Shamanism'.

It does, actually mean their beginnings were shamanic.  And such is not merely my opinion, but that of serious scholars and researchers.

I am seriously starting to think you're just looking for something to take offence to.

You provide plenty of grist for that, but it is of a particularly familiar and unpalatable nature.  So thanks, I will pass.

Well that was left field.

It is not left field.  When you brand a noted author a crackpot and dismiss the rest of the list as "wiccan" although they are nothing of the sort, it is insulting. 

I am not here to 'persecute' you.

Good to know.  But you are here to annoy with logical fallacies and a dismissive attitude.  You have done this before, and apparently it is all your tool box is full of for message boards.

Why is it an insult to be told the terminology used might be somewhat off? Shamanism isn't some universal religious term, you admitted that, anything beyond it it simply wilful ignorance.

Because I was using the term in a perfectly acceptable sense and with explanation that it is a Eurocentric term used for convenience, not semantic accuracy.  You are the one making a big deal and going on about it only applying to Siberia.

 

You can call yourself a Shaman if it makes you feel good about the world around you, hell people tell me I'm not a Druid, and the Druids died out in the 5th to 7th centuries, no skin off my butt, but if you're going to pass on things that are historically inaccurate, OR attack a community you disagree with, be forewarned, someone just might have something to say about it.

I don't recall calling myself anything specific; I usually say my personal tradition has shamanic aspects and it does indeed have those.  As for attacking a community I disagree with....I had no idea you were a "community".  But, you were the one that jumped in here to gripe about my use of the word "shaman" even after I provided you with examples of others using the same word with perfect comfort.

I note you ignored half the list of books, because you knew those would not bolster your argument with me.  Besides, if you are oh-so-celtic-recon, why is this your pissing match anyhow?  I am not, nor have I ever even thought about being Celtic recon, and so far as I am concerned or know of local Celtic recons, they do not consider themselves shamanic.

I will leave this cockamamie thread at that.

Good to know, since, so far as I can see, it had nothing to do with your tradition at all.

[Lark]

And arguing with the Forum Owner earns you a swift visit to our door.  "dusting off my hands".  There, now we can go back to our previous civil discussions.

-Lark-

[Labrys]

Thanks, now I can get back to trying to find a way to eke more bookspace....