So how far do the roots of Wicca go back?

[Anonymous]

This started as a PM to Frog. But the idea is this. Some say Gerald Gardener made it all up and there are no amount of conspiracy theories here as to why he did this, not what I'm asking. Books of shadows? Pah!!! Say some. Witches in the 19th C could barely read or write, so if there was a religion it would have been lost as none of the ceremonys were ever written down. Some say it dates back to pre-Christian times, maybe pre -Roman.
What do you think. I think it certainly has it's roots pre-Christian as Goddess worship goes way back. Before you all shout "IT HAS NOTHIN TO DO WITH DRUIDS/CELTS/STONE AGE MAN" This is not a shot at paganism or any other Wiccan beliefs. It is simply exploring where Wicca can find it's roots:
So, how far do you think the roots of Wicca go back?
Blessed Be
Bear

[Anonymous]

Read Ronald Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon". It tells exactly how and where Wicca came from.

[Brock]

Wicca, per se doesn't appear to go back any further than the late 1930's in Southern England, and in all probability should be dated somewhat later than that.  

The forces and influences that gave rise to Wicca, of course, are much older.

Sylvan's recommendation of Hutton's The Triumph of the Moon cannot really be bettered for a single reference on this subject.  While Ronald Hutton is Pagan, he is also by training and avocation an historian (he is currently Professor of History at the University of Bristol,) and he wrote The Triumph of the Moon as a serious academic work with the apprpriately extensive bibliography and endnotes.  It was published as a serious work of history by the Oxford University Press, although the paperbound editions were released by more popular publishing houses.  Despite all the trappings of academia, it's quite readable.

[/i]

[Gryphon]

Which brings up another bunch of interesting questions.  
 
As far as I can tell with my limited worlds' religions knowledge, ALL religions were made up by somebody.  
 
Judaism was made up by Abraham. There's a whole big story about him smashing his father's handiwork in the Old Testament.  
 
Christianity was made up by the followers of Jesus disciples.  
 
 
If Gardner was the first official Wiccan, what difference does it make? That was nearly a century ago and the myriad forms of witchcraft that exist in this century most likely wouldn't have been "invented" without his influences.  
 
Wicca has changed since the 1930s as much as the rest of society. One of the big things that draw many folks to this Path is the fact that for the most part we are not mired in dogma and can grow and change as our spiritual selves require.  
 
And the last question: in 6800 years will Gardner have achieved the same notoriety as Abraham?

[Anonymous]

I really loved that answer!
I haven't been a member of this site very long and the thing I love most about it, is they way you folks make me think.
I love my brothers and sisters in my coven but we have been together so long I know their views on most things and they me. I had forgotten what it is like to be new to the path and the questioning that goes with it. I think that perhaps I have become stayed in my views. Since I have been on here that questioning has come back. Of course we still make up new prayers and ceremonys for the Sabbats. But I hadn't realised how much I had missed the debate of what we do.
Thankyou all
Bear  

[Anonymous]

Personally, I don't care how old a religion is, or where it comes from.  As long as it is relevant and rings true to its believers, that is all that matters to me.  All religions reflect the same thing; just in different ways.

[Anonymous]

One of the things Devonbear and I discussed was the assumption that old = valid when it comes to religion.  There are very few "survivalist" European pagan trads.  Even reconstructed religions - such as Asatru, Hellenic, Religio Romana - are "new" even though they are based directly on older faiths.  

It makes no difference if a faith is 5,000 years old or 5 days old, it is someones faith and it is the ability to put that faith into practice that makes it valid.

Wassail

Frog

[Brock]

The issue here is not whether we can find evidence of "witchcraft" and folk magic prior to the middle of the 20th Century CE.  Of course we can:  the anthropology and social history shelves in libraries are full of books on the subject.  

The question is whether there is any evidence for the practice of witchcraft AS A NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGION prior to Gerald Gardner.  So far no persuasive evidence has been developed that would tend to show that anything of the sort did exist.  Now, I am quite aware that a lack of evidence merely shows that we have no evidence:  such a lack cannot prove that something did not exist.  But it does suggest that that's the way to bet.

[Shadow]

You seem to be troubled and need to somehow "legitimize" paganism/witchcraft by making some unbroken line that dates back centruies.  Sorry, it just ain't so.  As Brock said, there is simply no proof that Witchcraft was practicied as a non-Christian religion before Gardner.

As for modern medicine dating back to witchcraft roots, sorry, can't help you there either.  Modern medicine didn't come from the simple herblore of witchcraft.  It had a lot more to do with monks and priests of the Christian fatih on one side, and on people who didn't care so much for religion on the other.

You keep talking about medicine as it was practiced in the sixteen hundreds.  Sorry, most "doctors" at that time were really pretty primitive and didn't use much in the way of herbals at all.  Their most common form of treatment was to bleed the patient.  Sometimes they applied leeches to do this, which is how we come by calling physicians leeches.  Other than that they experimented with some things that were effective but most of that came down to them from the Greeks.  The old saying "one night with Venus gets you two weeks with Mercury" comes from the fact that mercury (the original "silver bullet") was used (injected) to treat certain infections, particulary venerial disease.  Other than that some of the military "leeches" had some skill in stitching and dressing wounds.  In fact most of the advances in trauma nedicine, even up into this century, come from the experiences of military surgeons.  In fact, if you really look back and trace the biggest advances in control of infection and treatment of trauma you will find that they go hand in hand with large scale conflict.

As I said in my response to you in the Cauldron, there is no need to try and legitimize your fiath by having it date back in some unbroken line for centuries.

[Anonymous]

"You seem to be troubled and need to somehow "legitimize" paganism/witchcraft by making some unbroken line that dates back centruies."

I don't care how old it is or who did what.  I'm just talking about how old it might be and what they may have done back then in relation to what is done now.  I could care less even if it was made yesterday.  

I read about herbs being used during thsi time in the Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology.  I also read books about how certain herbs were almost standard in some households, such as Lavendar, rosemary and ginger...not to mention other herbs they used for other things I won't get into...  

"In the 1600's, Nicholas Culpeper, an English pharmacist, published an herbal called The English Physician. Rather than requiring patients to purchase the expensive exotic or imported drugs prescribed at the time, Culpeper recommended the herbs his clients had growing in their own back yards, this seeming contemptible by professional physicians of the day. In America, during the 1600's and 1700's, herbs used traditionally by native Americans were quite popular, especially in the treatment of malaria and scurvy."

Enough about what is hasn't been proven and what has...what do you really think they did despite the fact there isn't evidence?  That's really where I"m coming from...just trying to stir up some conversation and see what people might see of all of this.  You can quote history books over and over...but what about what YOU think?

[Shadow]

Yes, people have been using herbals for centuries and some physicians in every era have embraced such practices.  Most people have no idea how parsley got to be a decoration on your plate at restuarants.  It is because parsley was widely used as a digestive aid, the diners actually ate the parsley after they finished their main course to ward off stomach upset.  Things like that are well documented, though largely forgotten these days.

However, what I believe is what I have said.  I don't blindly regurgitate things I've read in books.  I research something that I am interested in and find as much actual data as I can find.  So, no I don't just agree with what you are saying "because you feel it had to be this way".  If you have proof that what I'm saying is wrong, give me your sources, titles and authors, and I will consider your argument further.  In the absence of further evidence I have to go with what I have already verified.

I have not read The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, nor am I familiar with any other works by that author.  Chances are I'm not going to get th echance since the book is out of print.  However, in the face of evidence I have read it is also possible that this author falls into the habit that seems to plague so many authors who write such books and simply made up the facts to fit what was being said.  I'd have to see the sources for this research to know for sure.

Western medicine, and there are minor exceptions to this, pretty much evolved out of Greece, thus the Hipocratic Oath, and it has gotten some of its biggest advancements through war.  Thar's not speculation, that's simple fact.  Even in China, where herbal medicine and acupuncture are practiced right along side western medicine, the biggest advancements in trauma and infectious medicine seen in traditional Chinese medicine came during the Waring States Period of their history centuries ago.

In fact, western medicine has only recently begun to get more interested in herbal medicine and that is being fought tooth and nail here in the US.  It is getting more and more common to see doctors in Europe administering herbals in hospitals, particularly in the Nordic countries.  However, here in the United States it is common for the FDA to take a stand and ban any herbal that might possibly cause a problem if it is used incorrectly while making very sure to not ban the sinthetic equivilents that are made by pharmacutical companies.  Also, doctors in this country tend to label any herbal medicine as quackery even when such a label flies in the face of hard evidence to the contrary.  No, medicine as it is practiced in the western world left any possible link to the natural remedies of nature a long way back in time.

As for practicing witchcraft the way that people did before Christianity took hold in Europe, again, there just isn't any evidence that we even come close.  There just isn't anything that survived intact to tell us how it was done.  In fact, what little evidence we do have tends to show us that many of our "sacred ancestors" practiced things like animal and human sacrifice, which I tend to not pracitce too often (if too many obnoxious neighbors disappear the authorities start to take notice).  Nope, sorry, the NeoPagan movement is just that, new.

That is not to say that you can't practice neopaganism and still feel a connection to those pagan peoples of pre-Christian Europe.  You just can't expect to prove that you are doing things as they did them, that you are taking on faith.  As I said before, faith is not something concrete you can prove or disprove.

[branwen]

Part of the problem in this discussion is that we may be using the same terms for different things.  Brock said that witchcraft didn't exist as a non-Christian religion prior to Gardner.  While this is probably true insofar as it refers to a religion called witchcraft, there was a religion before then that was passed on.

Here's a useful definition from the House Shadow Drake:

Witchcraft is the continuation of the native cultural beliefs and practices of the ancient Europeans as they continued to be passed down and followed, generation after generation, after the advent of Christianity. Witchcraft is the name that was given to these practices by the Catholic Church and was not the name by which those who followed these beliefs and practices originally called their religion. 

There were certainly non-Christian beliefs and practices before Gardner, and some of them have been handed down through families.  Since such families have a tradition of spiritually adopting non-family members, the beliefs were allowed to spread to other groups.  Oral traditions can impart knowledge just as accurately as written texts since a written text always has an author and therefore a point of view.

The contemporary pagan movement seems to be a search for what modern society has lost. We look to our ancestors to see what they considered important, and we've constructed religions on that basis.  It's not difficult to understand that we search for a connection with the Earth at a time when our own society is destroying it.  Reconstructed religions choose those parts of ancient beliefs that are relevant now.  Thus, we no longer have ritual sacrifices, but we do honor the changing seasons.

The beliefs were not always called witchcraft, but they did exist in some form.  All religions change over the years.  I'm not quite sure why we have chosen to adopt a name given to us by a religion that wanted to destroy us.  Nevertheless, we call it witchcraft.  Some of it is ancient, and some of it is as new as this morning.  Gardner called it witchcraft and the rest of us have followed his lead, if not in belief then at least in terminology.

[Anonymous]

.....course they would *slaps head* silly me!!!

[Anonymous]

The question is whether there is any evidence for the practice of witchcraft AS A NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGION prior to Gerald Gardner.

Of course, that tends to overlook one of the big points most Pagans and most Christians tend to ignore.   If anything of the pagan religions survived, it wasn't the temple religions and priesthoods.  It was the very simple proverbs and superstition-like way of life in the countrysides.  Strict theology stayed in the cities until rather late into Christianity, and the generally ill-educated country priests were given a lot of leeway.  The blend of Christianity and the local beliefs and domestic rituals may well have surrvived.  And the more backwoods and politically unimportant the practioners, the longer it lasted (ask anyone in the Ozarks.)  Not exactly christian as defined by the churches, not pagan as defined by the temples......

Of course, that isn't Wicca.  Wicca may have come from a blend of some of that, Ceremonial Magic, academic theory, and charisma.  Which would give it an earlier root... among some not so early roots.

As to whether or not that mix is "witchcraft" (uses magic... but isn't rabid anti-christian....) is questionable.

[Anonymous]

You know, most religions are not practiced the same now as they were in the beginning.  

The Christian church was overhauled in the 4 th century and the Council of Nicea swept away any thing, like the gnostics that didn't fit their ideas.  The Reformation, the Counter-reformation the Revivals of the 1800's and so on.  

So what if Gardner created or revived (or whatever) Wicca in the 1930's?  It doesn't mean it should be less valued (or more).  I am not Wiccan and that isn't my path, but people who believe in and practice should not in my opinion be dismayed because it isn't an ancient religion.  

Their are no ancient religions being practiced.  Even the Catholic church has been revised.  We are all very far away from our neo-lithic forbearers.  We are people of our times.  I recommend the Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God" to find out where all our beliefs come from and read some Jung.  Very insightful.