This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If Hill's criticism of Hutton is permissible, then surely those of scholar Tolstoy are also applicable! What is wrong with quoting Tolstoy's demonstrations since there is a link for citation? But to remove it entirely, rather than rewrite it is to ignore it, which is virtual slipshod academia meant to protect Hutton from criticism (which I have observed numerous times on this page and elsewhere). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.64 ( talk) 15:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Could this be clarified? It's not very useful as written. — Ashley Y 01:40, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
I'm going to remove this otherwise. — Ashley Y 05:04, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
Done. — Ashley Y 07:29, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
Honestly, I must admit that, knowing what I know of propper academic protocol, I cannoit term Hutton a very objective scholar by any stretch of the term! A variety of themes keep cropping up in his work that are deeply problematic. For example, when it was brought to his attention that Norman Cohn lied about Margaret Murray, he refused to qualify his endorsement of him in any way! Moreover, he even mischaracterized Carlo Ginzburg's literature in a manner that makes it seems as though Ginzburg is saying something else entirely-- JB Russell and Norman Cohn have also done this, probably because the conclusions Ginzburg reaches, that is basided upon physical and documented evidence, is not what British academia has reached. Many of his arguments are also rather feeble and fail to take into account very important qustions.
He is also overtly pedantic, to the point of audacity! Hungerian Prof. Eva Pocs has found (performing the largest study to date) that there's definately a shamanistic and folkloric antecedant to medieval witchcraft belief. A conclusion that Hutton thoughtlessly reject as inconsequential, because, he says, she uses the term "shamanistic" (a noted similie, rather than any sort of metaphor between Europe and Siberia/Arctic tribal belief!). Hutton argues, pedantically, that any term with the prefix "shaman-" in it is ONLY to be used when refering to beliefs in regions of the arctic north and Siberia, apparently despite the fact that no such metaphore or direct parallels were intended. C'mon, Ron! You're better than this!
His books are also full of intimidation tactics. As an example: he says, "no scholar with a real knowledge of the middle ages" would state that the Green Man foliate carvings were images of any beloved Deity, or pre-Christian. However, I can think of at least one medievalist that does: Samantha Riches in her monograph, St. George. Such statements are usually meant to silence any minority opinions within any given field. For example, he keeps saying, "most British schoalrs" this, or "scholars in Folklore believe" that! But, where are the reoutible scholars within any given academic field that believe differently than he? They are entirely missing from his books.
In fact, the most worriesome aspect of Hutton, as a scholar, is that his texts are works of polemics, rather than objective historiographies that are, in any way, BALANCED; he's keen on ONLY using the say-so of those scholars that agree with him.
In all honesty, the impression I got while reading his books, and seeing various public statement, is that British academia generally looks down its noise severely at American and European scholars, as though they're more "rigorous" than anyone else. In fact, I was surprised to note the differing methodology adopted by Britain as opposed to continental Europe-- unfortnately, it appears to me that British scholars (at least Hutton) view European scholars as inconsequential, especially when they relay supportive evidence that directly counters British reductionism.
I could go on, and on, re: the problematic nature of Ronald Hutton as a scholar. Especially when many modern readers accept his unsubstantiated material as though they were empiriucal facts. Often, one will also see Hutton failing to demarcate between what is fact, and what is his opinion merely guised as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.31.25 ( talk • contribs)
Well, if you're done (I hope...), please return and sign your post properly or we will be far too tempted to delete it. Earrach ( talk) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've read Cohn and he cites extracts from Murray, together with details (from the original witchcraft texts) of what she left out. The extracts (fantasy sequences) from her tie up with the Sacred Texts online copy of her work. Are you saying Cohn made up the texts that he says she left out?
-- TonyinJersey 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've checked my copy of Cohn, and the main arguments come on pages 112ff, where he cites Murray on Forfar and Gowdie's confession at Nairn. In once instance dots ... are used by her to exclude fanatasy elements, in another, a dash. The exclusion of these paragraphs gives the impression by Murray that the trial records are presenting a naturalistic/realistic account of sabbats, and removes all references to fantasy elements (flying out to sea, dragging a ship down underwater by pulling on the cable, shrinking to the size of bees etc.) Cohn's argument is that once you re-instate the fantasy element in the texts (which is sizable) the accounts cannot be taken at face value, and that you cannot pick and choose naturalistic elements to fit your case (much as David Strauss argued about gospel miracle stories).
-- TonyinJersey 13:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I've checked a number of Cohn's extracts from Murray against Murray's book (e.g. at http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/wcwe/wcwe05.htm) and they tie up exactly as he quotes them, with the omitted sections he prints after. It doesn't look as though Cohn has been sloppy, and Farrell-Roberts in her article curiously says Murray does deal with the fanatasy elements she left out, but I can find no to flying out to sea and sinking a ship, for example. Quite how that ties up with Farrell-Roberts notion that flting represented visionary experiences to an "otherworld", I do not know, but it is not presented as such, and Murray does not deal with that story at all. Of course if fanatasy elements are taken allegorically or symbolically, they can be explained away, but it seems that Farrell-Roberts brings one or two assumptions to the text; in any case, her allegations against Cohn on what he quoted and what was there are false.
-- TonyinJersey 12:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still unclear. Farrell Roberts states that "I had discovered that an historian, Norman Cohn, that Hutton had strongly endorsed, and put to much use, was demonstably highly inaccurate in quoting from his sources", and later "I checked Cohn to discover the texts that Murray had allegedly omitted." Well, while Murray may have addressed those elements elsewhere, the passages he quotes from Murray do have the ommissions he says and are accurately quoted. Can you point me to pages in Cohn where you think this is not the case and he inaccurately quotes Murray, which is the charge given by Farrell Roberts? It seems Farrell Roberts is making two charges (a) that Cohn is inaccurate in his quotations from Murray and (b) that the arguments he draws from this are addressed elsewhere in her books. While (b) may well stand, and Farrell Roberts provides some good arguments in this respect, (a) does not, and by conflating the two, Farrell Roberts is making some very inaccurate statements herself. It is one think to say that Cohn is wrong when he says Murray meant such and such, but quite another to say that he quoted her inaccurately. I think we need to separate the two issues.
-- TonyinJersey 12:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Farrell Roberts statements - which I give in quotes above - says "he is highly inaccurate in quoting from his sources", and while he may be guilty of selective quoting from Murray (an ironic accusation, since it is his own against her), he cannot be accused of that. That is why I make the distinction between what FR has said, and what she intends to say (and does say elsewhere).
-- TonyinJersey 06:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
199.120.81.45 05:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)A Pagan-Witch & Freelance Researcher
Hutton gives details of his main sources for the low esteem in which he holds Murray as Alan Macfarlane, Keith Thomas and (above all) Norman Cohn (see Hutton 1991, 301-6 and 331-4; 1999, 362-3, and sources cited there). However, in his essay of 2000 in Folkore Paganism and Polemic : The Debate over the Origins of Modern Pagan Witchcraft, he has also kept up with more modern writers whose research also discredits the Murray thesis - "During the 1990s, British historians have emerged among those at the forefront, the work of Lyndal Roper, Robin Briggs, James Sharpe, Diane Purkiss, and Stuart Clark being particularly noteworthy (Hutton 1999, 378-81, and sources cited there). None have found any basis for characterising early modern witchcraft as paganism." So the idea that he is only drawing on one or two lines of research is incorrect; he has also done original research on witch trial numbers.
-- TonyinJersey 13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Lindal Roper researched the German sources extensively for her book "Witch Craze", but didn't come up with a shred of paganism, unless you count loosely attached beliefs in the evil eye, and curses. But there is a lot about bad harvests, the breakdown of the hierarchy of civil authority, the fracture of the Reformation, and the scapegoating that resulted, mostly of women. She also sees a fear of older women, asking how could the old woman support herself, in a society where women's status was closely tied to their reproductive capacity? The old women acted as midwives, helped the mothers with the infants, and could also milk cows; in these capacities, they were placed in the worst possible place when children died, and milk went off; if men were impotent, it was felt that this came from the baleful presence of the infertile woman. And fears of fertility also come into the pictures of the time, where a common them of the fantasy links the post-menopausal woman with a young man, she sexually desiring him, even though she cannot give him children; there is a terror about failure in fertility, and this is one of the forces driving the persecution. There is a lot more about the social background in which this arose, a society at the subsistence level, with a corresponding mindset quite different from our own.
In case you are interested, there is a review still available at: [1]
-- TonyinJersey 13:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Tony, while I haven't read Dr. Lindal Roper's book, it strikes me that if this is her comclusion, then perhaps it bears asking how she defined "paganism' or "pre-Christian beliefs and antecedants"? After all, numerous scholars have also investigated the Germanic trials and reached quite opposite conclusions. Prof. Claude Lecouteux, in his Witches, Werewolves and Fairies: Shapeshifters and Astral Doubles in the Middle Ages has found how the Germanic trials and the Sagags generally substantiate each other; while noting the shamanic antencedants at the heart of these recorded witchcraft-belief systems, etc. Even Professors Eva Pocs [Between the Living and the Dead] and David Lederer [a contributor to the anthology, Werewolves, Witches, and Wandering Spirits (ed. by Prof. Katherine A. Edwards)] have found evidence that coroborates the other regarding paganism as a shamanic substratum of the Germanic witchcraft trials during the early-modern era. While not casting criticism on Dr. Roper, it must be remembered that the three scholars I have introduced, here, are specialists in the field of witchcraft study and the middle ages. Moreover, I have found unequivocal evidence in my own research for the diffusion of Siberian/Mongolian/Asiatic shamanism throughout Indo-European cultures that is a recurrent theme in the trials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.31.18 ( talk) 17:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a few notes:
1) Hutton revisits some areas in Witches, Druids and King Arthur (not to be confused with his latest book on druids) and points out that the paganism of the late Roman Empire / Dark Ages period had changed significantly, and was much closer to Wicca in some respects, I think one was the move to a symbolism in religious form and away from blood sacrifice.
2) I think the pagan/Christian distinction is extremely problematic. The Carmenina Gaedelica is clearly Christian in form, and includes a Beltane Blessing, and does not seem to distinguish clearly between prayers and charms. An example of a distinction we make, but does not seem to have been in evidence back then.
3) Just as Christmas continues as a rather secular celebration by many people, the continued existence of a festival does not mean that those participating would sign up to pagan beliefs.
While it is true that Hutton may have kept up with current research, it is not accurate to say that he is basing his dismissal entirely off of these latter authors. According to a talk Janine had with Hutton, the single source he used to discredit Murray (in his mind) was Cohn. And as for the "original research on witch trial numbers", I cannot bring myself to term it as "original research" because Hutton simply doesn't explain what lead him to this number in his "Pagan Religions", as the figure's almost impossibly LOW! Nor, it should be acknowledged, did Hutton bother assigning any dates to this quantified number. So, I simply can't buy into that, I'm afraid.
One other facet I must admit that Hutton is blatantly guilty of is that he EDITS history, and blatantly misleads his readers as a result, I fear. For example, NO WHERE in his texts does he acknowledge the ground-breaking research from out of continental Europe (another schlastic concensus that defies his beloved British academia, which is only NOW finding support by more native English-speakers, such as the witchcraft trials bearing a shamanic antecedant; he thoughtlessly rejects it as even a plausibility, which is a shame). Anyway...by ignoring this VAST and formidible research he is giving a false impression to his readers that:
1.) No scholars believe differently than he. 2.) NO such research exists! 3.) Should the reader hear about such research they immediately dismiss it, cuynically, because "if there WAS anything to it Hutton WOULD HAVE mentioned it in his books!"
Such editing of academia is NOT the job of the Historian! Their job is to relate everything that is going on in the academic world FIRST; and then, and ONLY then, pass judgment IF it is warrented, and one'd betetr have a DAMN good reason for doing so other than semantics and unsubstantiated claims (his chapter on Samhain in "Stations" illustrated this last point very well, unfortunately).
So, with all of thes troubling instances, one must wonder WHY scholars have not censured Hutton for these books? Especially when he clearly mischaracterizes the works of other scholars, and portrays them in agreement with his extremism, which they are not; or, he has entirely mischaracterized the original research of another scholar, as he did with Carlo Ginzburg in the linked-to article from Folklore.
Sadly, Hutton's behaviour has had a resounding effect upon modern Pagans; they think that if HE can write an entirely one-sided polemic and ignore scholars and research that differs from what they THINK history was, than so can THEY (and, they sit on their laurels the whole time). Indeed, I am aware of DOZENS of historians that have portrayed the history of ancient paganism FAR diferently than he; but it seems important to Hutton that paganism died quickly, and without a complaint-- Why? The truth of the matter is paganism fought HARD for their religions AGAINST the Christians! Moreover, hius book is often full of whoppers: Why is Hutton so keen on believing in secret Christians (Mme. Blavatsky), but not secret Pagans; and why is it so important to him to write off Pan as a "Great God" (which is incorrect) and even writing off the cult of Isis as a Great-Goddess as being "atypical", when Her cult was anything BUT "typical", and he simply fails to define what WAS "typical" and spits in the face of the evidence we have in which She WAS a "Great-Goddess" [The Golden Ass]?
But, unfortunately, Hutton never offers forth what has brought him to these conclusions inspite of the evidence, while he also (more unfortunately) seems to hide behind his personally adopted methodology, rather than putting all his cards out on the table. If he did so, it would it would allow those reading his material to think for themselvs and to understand with a better ability where he was/is coming from! But, Hutton simply does not allow the reader to do so.
But, before I leave-off, one more point needs to be made. Often what I have seen in his books, often labled as "arguments" on his part, are not really "arguments" at all! Rather, he merely relies upon the alleged "consensus" of those scholars who he percieves as being in agreement with him. But, where are the scholars that DON'T agree with him, I would like to know? And WHY does asking that question immediately make other Pagans attack me as a "Fluff Bunny History Revisionist", damn it? LOL... Seriously: I've been called that! And, I find being called a "History Revisionist" HIGHLY offensive; most Pagans that use it as a term of abuse simply don't have an actual understanding of the nature of academia, etc.!
Also, it's worth noting-- in spades!-- that it's unusual how keen Hutton is about his allegations for their having been (so he claims) NO pagan survivalism by any stretch of the imagination! Yet...not once did he define what a potential survival might, or could, be! Now, this is a very important question, don't you think? After all, is it not reasonable to put forth the idea that if one is going to academically write something off, then they had better define it, so that others-- if they found evidence in agreement with their standards and definitions-- could bring forth said "evidence" and fashion a remarkible case to the contrary? Moreover, he writes off potential Pagan survivals, as have been pointed out by other scholars [eg. holy wells] as "not a religion" or "not religious". Well, here again, he failed to define what would constitute a "religion"! Would it not have behooved him to define what a "religion" is, and is not? Of course, in the former, animism would be a prime concern for the worship at holy wells, I believe. But, why, I must wonder, is it so important that he take these "definitions" for granted, rather than defining them? Is there some ulterior motive below the surface, here? Enquiring minds certainly would like to know!
207.177.31.20 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 207.177.31.21Anonymous Pagan-Witch & Researcher!
Keith Ward, in his "Is religion dangerous?" actually starts by looking at defining religion, and points out that the term "religion" covers such a broad array of phenomena that it is almost impossible to identify a core of belief or practice common to everything we would identify as a religion. "Is Communism a religion? Or football? Or Scientology? How do we know what a religion is?" (p. 8). That may be why Hutton hesitates to provide a definition; it is next to impossible. Is it a religion to not walk under ladders, throw salt over your shoulder, touch wood for luck, kiss your hand if you see one magpie etc? That is probably why he rules out placed like Holy Wells in his discussion; they have often become places which people may visit, but not in the context of an organised belief system but instead as unattached locations that are part of handed down custom, like the Musgrave ritual in Conan Doyle. -- TonyinJersey 13:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
-- 207.177.31.20 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 207.177.31.21Anonymous Pagan-Witch & Researcher!
Why does the article list Stations of the Sun (with two others) as being published in 2001? Were these ISBNs for paperbacks or reprints? I have the hardback in front of me, and it's from 1996. ( ISBN 0-19-820570-8). The dustjacket for it puts Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles as 1991 and Rise and Fall of Merrie England as 1994. Telsa 14:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC).
I removed the review link by Max Dashu. She is not a historial, she is a professional artist. She only fancies herself as a historian so people will take her extremist revisionist feminism seriously. -- Toadsboon 08:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
An Assesment
Hey guys, I linked to what I have found to be a very important assessment of the scholarship of modern Paganism, written by a freelance historian. He brings up some very important questions the author feels that historians need to address, which they really have not. Now, my phrasing may need to be tweaked, but I have tyried to write it in as objective a tone as possible, while still informing a reader who scans the articles, what this respective link/site is about. 207.177.31.20 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Anonymous Pagan-Witch & Researcher!
199.120.81.45 04:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Anonymous Pagan-Witch Researcher
Narsil27 here. Please, for the love of all things NPOV, delete the Dashu article. It seems highly suspicious to me (an should to anyone else) that the only two active external links are to artciles critical of Ronald Hutton, and which both display a decidedly pro-Wiccan bent. No suprise, given the author of the article, but since when has Wikipedia become a dumping ground for neo-pagan archeological/anthropological pseduotheories casting ancient Europe as an anachronistic left-wing paradise? Reading reams of POV Wikipedia articles (most of them left-leaning)on ancient European religion is a small price to pay for the privilege of having Wikipedia online, but everyone really needs to excercise a bit of ideological self-control. Fuzzypeg - do the right thing. Leave the Dashu link, but deactivate it, and link to an article praising Hutton at the expense of your compatriots. Truth be told, Gimbutas, Adler, and their faction has been sliding down the ladder of serious academia at an exponential rate for a least a decade. That should be made clearer in this article by the inclusion of more balanced external links. Narsil27 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where this Dashu was educated and certainly should not be included in a reference.
83.204.23.239, can you be more specific with the rumors about Prof. Hutton's fictitious work on Homosexuality in Paganism? I removed the earlier (incorrect) information about his future work, and you've put an ammended version back in about 24 hours. Not that I wouldn't buy such a book by Prof. Hutton if it existed, but where are these rumors coming from? Wouldn't it be more useful to e-mail Prof. Hutton and ask him what his next project *is*, instead of listing what he *isn't* working on? John Burridge 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
His next project due out possibly next year (hopefully) is an academic footnoted and more detailed study on the Druids: A History (2007); source, personal email from RH, but also mentioned in introduction to Druids but without timetable.
-- TonyinJersey 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Tony_theprof has reinserted a reference to Hutton's work re: druidry, calling it "sympathetic but revisionist."
I had deleted this as unsourced. Tony reinserted it with a link to the lecture in question. My question was not that the lecture did not exist, but with it being described as " revisionist." While that is a technical term, it (like, for example, "cult") is subject to a certain amount of opprobrium, and calling Hutton's work "revisionist" could indicate that this lecture is of questionable veracity or heavily slanted to a particular POV.
In order to avoid any edit warring, I'd like to open a discussion of possible other ways to phrase this.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The review section has become quite problematic, to the point of having some serious WP:BLP balance problems. There is no distinction made between reviews by historians and reviews by wiccans/neo-pagans, and none of the former are accessible at this time. It's not at all clear that the writers of the latter are notable enough to stand as representatives of their groups. Someone above mentioned Max Dashu, and after pages of Googling I have to say that I can find no worthwhile information about her, other than she has a knack for getting herself mentioned all over the internet.
At the very least I'm inclined to split the two types of reviews apart, so that readers won't be misled into thinking that Asphodel P. Long (for example) was a historian (she was actually a "Goddess activist"). Mangoe ( talk) 05:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In an effort to supply the reader with enough knowledge to make an informed decision, and rather than leaving it up to peripherally linked-to reviews of his work, I sincerely believe that a sub-heading devoted to factually and methodologically critiquing the work of Hutton is necessary. As an example of my concern, it has been my personal experience that anyone that comes to an alternative conclusion to those of Hutton is dismissed out-of-hand; moreover, these individuals praise him for purposefully ommitting whole swaths of data as proof of his so-called "academic rigour"! However, it always seemed evident to me that this is actually proof of a weakness, rather than a strength, because Hutton routinely writes as though he needn't be concerned with actually having to defend his position from counter-data. In fact, he routinely ignores it, when he's demosteably aware of it--presenting it as though it doesn't even exist. Quite honedstly, his writings are full of well-known Logical Fallacies, such as "Special Pleading" and "Observational Selectivity"...all of which are academic no-nos. So, the reader must really be made aware of his extremist positions and polemics. He frequently make declarations that imply that no other scholar believes differently than he--and this simply is not true! While he also puts forth his personal opinion as though it's established fact.
Anyway, I think that Wikipedia would be a fabulous forum for recording these issues, especially when he engages in Logical Fallacies, misrepresents his sources, and his problematic conclusions, etc. These can certainly be documented, in many respect, by citing his books and comparing them with what his sources actually say.
A few instances right off the top of my head is that, while he frequently cites Kieth Thomas as in entire agreement with him, he demonstrably ignores that he (in "Religion and the Decline of Magic") not only regards well cults as a survival of Paganism; but he also heavily discusses the Medieval worship of the gods of the planets!
I his "Pagan Religions", Hutton engages in blatantly Special Pleading where he castigages a scholar (I'd have to look up the exact specs. for it's been a while) for basing an argument on the relative similarities, when the differences are week to the point of being inconsiquential; however, later on, Hutton draws a conclusion basing his argument soley on the similarities between Odin and Christ, when those similarities are far weaker when put up against the strength of the shamanic and Indo-European differences! One would have thought that Hutton would have learned from this account of Special Pleading, but he has apparently engaged in it quite frequently in his book, "Shamanism: Siberian Spirituality & the Western Imagination"!
But, perhaps more telling is his book, "Witches, Druids, and King Arthur": In it he declares, as though it's established fact, that by the end of the sixth-century paganism was dead and gone forever throughout the Mediterannean, having been replaced by Christinaity (ven on a popular level). Now, this is fine, if all of his sources support this view. However, what's not alright is when we find that he has demonstrably mislead his readership. One of Hutton's sources, whom he cites at length, is Prof. Bowersock's brilliant work, "Hellenism in Late Antiquity" (by "Hellenism" he means ancient paganism!). In it, Prof. Bowersock finds, and quotes at length, unequivocal direct source-material that ancient paganism was still flourishing threoughout the Med. by the end of the sixth-century--in fact, it wasn't even on the wane! But, of all the chapters in this book that Hutton clearly cites, this is the ONE chapter that he blatantly ignores! This is demonstrably misleading, on Hutton's part.
I personally urge Wikipedia writers to review his work with a more critical eye, and start to document such behavior within Hutton's texts for the benefit of the readers of Wikipedia.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.81.47 ( talk) 17:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the Druid Network constitutes an adequate source for the claim about Hutton's parentage, but in any case the page cited appears to be empty. Mangoe ( talk) 14:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Almost all of the information in Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles is already presented (and much more succinctly) here. Mannanan51 ( talk) 00:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)mannanan51
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ronald Hutton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that it is added that Ronald Hutton has been the Gresham Professor of Divinity at Gresham College since his appointment in 2022. You can read more about Ronald Hutton and Gresham College here. He is currently giving a lecture series at Gresham College on Finding Britain's Lost Gods here.
I would like to disclose that I work for Gresham College and so I am suggesting this as an edit. Commsgresh ( talk) 14:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Your request did not provide specific directions for the text's emplacement. COI edit requests must include complete and specific descriptions of where the text is to be placed. "Please add X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "Please add X to Y". |
Interngresham ( talk) 14:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If Hill's criticism of Hutton is permissible, then surely those of scholar Tolstoy are also applicable! What is wrong with quoting Tolstoy's demonstrations since there is a link for citation? But to remove it entirely, rather than rewrite it is to ignore it, which is virtual slipshod academia meant to protect Hutton from criticism (which I have observed numerous times on this page and elsewhere). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.64 ( talk) 15:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Could this be clarified? It's not very useful as written. — Ashley Y 01:40, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
I'm going to remove this otherwise. — Ashley Y 05:04, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
Done. — Ashley Y 07:29, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
Honestly, I must admit that, knowing what I know of propper academic protocol, I cannoit term Hutton a very objective scholar by any stretch of the term! A variety of themes keep cropping up in his work that are deeply problematic. For example, when it was brought to his attention that Norman Cohn lied about Margaret Murray, he refused to qualify his endorsement of him in any way! Moreover, he even mischaracterized Carlo Ginzburg's literature in a manner that makes it seems as though Ginzburg is saying something else entirely-- JB Russell and Norman Cohn have also done this, probably because the conclusions Ginzburg reaches, that is basided upon physical and documented evidence, is not what British academia has reached. Many of his arguments are also rather feeble and fail to take into account very important qustions.
He is also overtly pedantic, to the point of audacity! Hungerian Prof. Eva Pocs has found (performing the largest study to date) that there's definately a shamanistic and folkloric antecedant to medieval witchcraft belief. A conclusion that Hutton thoughtlessly reject as inconsequential, because, he says, she uses the term "shamanistic" (a noted similie, rather than any sort of metaphor between Europe and Siberia/Arctic tribal belief!). Hutton argues, pedantically, that any term with the prefix "shaman-" in it is ONLY to be used when refering to beliefs in regions of the arctic north and Siberia, apparently despite the fact that no such metaphore or direct parallels were intended. C'mon, Ron! You're better than this!
His books are also full of intimidation tactics. As an example: he says, "no scholar with a real knowledge of the middle ages" would state that the Green Man foliate carvings were images of any beloved Deity, or pre-Christian. However, I can think of at least one medievalist that does: Samantha Riches in her monograph, St. George. Such statements are usually meant to silence any minority opinions within any given field. For example, he keeps saying, "most British schoalrs" this, or "scholars in Folklore believe" that! But, where are the reoutible scholars within any given academic field that believe differently than he? They are entirely missing from his books.
In fact, the most worriesome aspect of Hutton, as a scholar, is that his texts are works of polemics, rather than objective historiographies that are, in any way, BALANCED; he's keen on ONLY using the say-so of those scholars that agree with him.
In all honesty, the impression I got while reading his books, and seeing various public statement, is that British academia generally looks down its noise severely at American and European scholars, as though they're more "rigorous" than anyone else. In fact, I was surprised to note the differing methodology adopted by Britain as opposed to continental Europe-- unfortnately, it appears to me that British scholars (at least Hutton) view European scholars as inconsequential, especially when they relay supportive evidence that directly counters British reductionism.
I could go on, and on, re: the problematic nature of Ronald Hutton as a scholar. Especially when many modern readers accept his unsubstantiated material as though they were empiriucal facts. Often, one will also see Hutton failing to demarcate between what is fact, and what is his opinion merely guised as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.31.25 ( talk • contribs)
Well, if you're done (I hope...), please return and sign your post properly or we will be far too tempted to delete it. Earrach ( talk) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've read Cohn and he cites extracts from Murray, together with details (from the original witchcraft texts) of what she left out. The extracts (fantasy sequences) from her tie up with the Sacred Texts online copy of her work. Are you saying Cohn made up the texts that he says she left out?
-- TonyinJersey 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've checked my copy of Cohn, and the main arguments come on pages 112ff, where he cites Murray on Forfar and Gowdie's confession at Nairn. In once instance dots ... are used by her to exclude fanatasy elements, in another, a dash. The exclusion of these paragraphs gives the impression by Murray that the trial records are presenting a naturalistic/realistic account of sabbats, and removes all references to fantasy elements (flying out to sea, dragging a ship down underwater by pulling on the cable, shrinking to the size of bees etc.) Cohn's argument is that once you re-instate the fantasy element in the texts (which is sizable) the accounts cannot be taken at face value, and that you cannot pick and choose naturalistic elements to fit your case (much as David Strauss argued about gospel miracle stories).
-- TonyinJersey 13:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I've checked a number of Cohn's extracts from Murray against Murray's book (e.g. at http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/wcwe/wcwe05.htm) and they tie up exactly as he quotes them, with the omitted sections he prints after. It doesn't look as though Cohn has been sloppy, and Farrell-Roberts in her article curiously says Murray does deal with the fanatasy elements she left out, but I can find no to flying out to sea and sinking a ship, for example. Quite how that ties up with Farrell-Roberts notion that flting represented visionary experiences to an "otherworld", I do not know, but it is not presented as such, and Murray does not deal with that story at all. Of course if fanatasy elements are taken allegorically or symbolically, they can be explained away, but it seems that Farrell-Roberts brings one or two assumptions to the text; in any case, her allegations against Cohn on what he quoted and what was there are false.
-- TonyinJersey 12:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still unclear. Farrell Roberts states that "I had discovered that an historian, Norman Cohn, that Hutton had strongly endorsed, and put to much use, was demonstably highly inaccurate in quoting from his sources", and later "I checked Cohn to discover the texts that Murray had allegedly omitted." Well, while Murray may have addressed those elements elsewhere, the passages he quotes from Murray do have the ommissions he says and are accurately quoted. Can you point me to pages in Cohn where you think this is not the case and he inaccurately quotes Murray, which is the charge given by Farrell Roberts? It seems Farrell Roberts is making two charges (a) that Cohn is inaccurate in his quotations from Murray and (b) that the arguments he draws from this are addressed elsewhere in her books. While (b) may well stand, and Farrell Roberts provides some good arguments in this respect, (a) does not, and by conflating the two, Farrell Roberts is making some very inaccurate statements herself. It is one think to say that Cohn is wrong when he says Murray meant such and such, but quite another to say that he quoted her inaccurately. I think we need to separate the two issues.
-- TonyinJersey 12:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Farrell Roberts statements - which I give in quotes above - says "he is highly inaccurate in quoting from his sources", and while he may be guilty of selective quoting from Murray (an ironic accusation, since it is his own against her), he cannot be accused of that. That is why I make the distinction between what FR has said, and what she intends to say (and does say elsewhere).
-- TonyinJersey 06:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
199.120.81.45 05:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)A Pagan-Witch & Freelance Researcher
Hutton gives details of his main sources for the low esteem in which he holds Murray as Alan Macfarlane, Keith Thomas and (above all) Norman Cohn (see Hutton 1991, 301-6 and 331-4; 1999, 362-3, and sources cited there). However, in his essay of 2000 in Folkore Paganism and Polemic : The Debate over the Origins of Modern Pagan Witchcraft, he has also kept up with more modern writers whose research also discredits the Murray thesis - "During the 1990s, British historians have emerged among those at the forefront, the work of Lyndal Roper, Robin Briggs, James Sharpe, Diane Purkiss, and Stuart Clark being particularly noteworthy (Hutton 1999, 378-81, and sources cited there). None have found any basis for characterising early modern witchcraft as paganism." So the idea that he is only drawing on one or two lines of research is incorrect; he has also done original research on witch trial numbers.
-- TonyinJersey 13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Lindal Roper researched the German sources extensively for her book "Witch Craze", but didn't come up with a shred of paganism, unless you count loosely attached beliefs in the evil eye, and curses. But there is a lot about bad harvests, the breakdown of the hierarchy of civil authority, the fracture of the Reformation, and the scapegoating that resulted, mostly of women. She also sees a fear of older women, asking how could the old woman support herself, in a society where women's status was closely tied to their reproductive capacity? The old women acted as midwives, helped the mothers with the infants, and could also milk cows; in these capacities, they were placed in the worst possible place when children died, and milk went off; if men were impotent, it was felt that this came from the baleful presence of the infertile woman. And fears of fertility also come into the pictures of the time, where a common them of the fantasy links the post-menopausal woman with a young man, she sexually desiring him, even though she cannot give him children; there is a terror about failure in fertility, and this is one of the forces driving the persecution. There is a lot more about the social background in which this arose, a society at the subsistence level, with a corresponding mindset quite different from our own.
In case you are interested, there is a review still available at: [1]
-- TonyinJersey 13:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Tony, while I haven't read Dr. Lindal Roper's book, it strikes me that if this is her comclusion, then perhaps it bears asking how she defined "paganism' or "pre-Christian beliefs and antecedants"? After all, numerous scholars have also investigated the Germanic trials and reached quite opposite conclusions. Prof. Claude Lecouteux, in his Witches, Werewolves and Fairies: Shapeshifters and Astral Doubles in the Middle Ages has found how the Germanic trials and the Sagags generally substantiate each other; while noting the shamanic antencedants at the heart of these recorded witchcraft-belief systems, etc. Even Professors Eva Pocs [Between the Living and the Dead] and David Lederer [a contributor to the anthology, Werewolves, Witches, and Wandering Spirits (ed. by Prof. Katherine A. Edwards)] have found evidence that coroborates the other regarding paganism as a shamanic substratum of the Germanic witchcraft trials during the early-modern era. While not casting criticism on Dr. Roper, it must be remembered that the three scholars I have introduced, here, are specialists in the field of witchcraft study and the middle ages. Moreover, I have found unequivocal evidence in my own research for the diffusion of Siberian/Mongolian/Asiatic shamanism throughout Indo-European cultures that is a recurrent theme in the trials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.31.18 ( talk) 17:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a few notes:
1) Hutton revisits some areas in Witches, Druids and King Arthur (not to be confused with his latest book on druids) and points out that the paganism of the late Roman Empire / Dark Ages period had changed significantly, and was much closer to Wicca in some respects, I think one was the move to a symbolism in religious form and away from blood sacrifice.
2) I think the pagan/Christian distinction is extremely problematic. The Carmenina Gaedelica is clearly Christian in form, and includes a Beltane Blessing, and does not seem to distinguish clearly between prayers and charms. An example of a distinction we make, but does not seem to have been in evidence back then.
3) Just as Christmas continues as a rather secular celebration by many people, the continued existence of a festival does not mean that those participating would sign up to pagan beliefs.
While it is true that Hutton may have kept up with current research, it is not accurate to say that he is basing his dismissal entirely off of these latter authors. According to a talk Janine had with Hutton, the single source he used to discredit Murray (in his mind) was Cohn. And as for the "original research on witch trial numbers", I cannot bring myself to term it as "original research" because Hutton simply doesn't explain what lead him to this number in his "Pagan Religions", as the figure's almost impossibly LOW! Nor, it should be acknowledged, did Hutton bother assigning any dates to this quantified number. So, I simply can't buy into that, I'm afraid.
One other facet I must admit that Hutton is blatantly guilty of is that he EDITS history, and blatantly misleads his readers as a result, I fear. For example, NO WHERE in his texts does he acknowledge the ground-breaking research from out of continental Europe (another schlastic concensus that defies his beloved British academia, which is only NOW finding support by more native English-speakers, such as the witchcraft trials bearing a shamanic antecedant; he thoughtlessly rejects it as even a plausibility, which is a shame). Anyway...by ignoring this VAST and formidible research he is giving a false impression to his readers that:
1.) No scholars believe differently than he. 2.) NO such research exists! 3.) Should the reader hear about such research they immediately dismiss it, cuynically, because "if there WAS anything to it Hutton WOULD HAVE mentioned it in his books!"
Such editing of academia is NOT the job of the Historian! Their job is to relate everything that is going on in the academic world FIRST; and then, and ONLY then, pass judgment IF it is warrented, and one'd betetr have a DAMN good reason for doing so other than semantics and unsubstantiated claims (his chapter on Samhain in "Stations" illustrated this last point very well, unfortunately).
So, with all of thes troubling instances, one must wonder WHY scholars have not censured Hutton for these books? Especially when he clearly mischaracterizes the works of other scholars, and portrays them in agreement with his extremism, which they are not; or, he has entirely mischaracterized the original research of another scholar, as he did with Carlo Ginzburg in the linked-to article from Folklore.
Sadly, Hutton's behaviour has had a resounding effect upon modern Pagans; they think that if HE can write an entirely one-sided polemic and ignore scholars and research that differs from what they THINK history was, than so can THEY (and, they sit on their laurels the whole time). Indeed, I am aware of DOZENS of historians that have portrayed the history of ancient paganism FAR diferently than he; but it seems important to Hutton that paganism died quickly, and without a complaint-- Why? The truth of the matter is paganism fought HARD for their religions AGAINST the Christians! Moreover, hius book is often full of whoppers: Why is Hutton so keen on believing in secret Christians (Mme. Blavatsky), but not secret Pagans; and why is it so important to him to write off Pan as a "Great God" (which is incorrect) and even writing off the cult of Isis as a Great-Goddess as being "atypical", when Her cult was anything BUT "typical", and he simply fails to define what WAS "typical" and spits in the face of the evidence we have in which She WAS a "Great-Goddess" [The Golden Ass]?
But, unfortunately, Hutton never offers forth what has brought him to these conclusions inspite of the evidence, while he also (more unfortunately) seems to hide behind his personally adopted methodology, rather than putting all his cards out on the table. If he did so, it would it would allow those reading his material to think for themselvs and to understand with a better ability where he was/is coming from! But, Hutton simply does not allow the reader to do so.
But, before I leave-off, one more point needs to be made. Often what I have seen in his books, often labled as "arguments" on his part, are not really "arguments" at all! Rather, he merely relies upon the alleged "consensus" of those scholars who he percieves as being in agreement with him. But, where are the scholars that DON'T agree with him, I would like to know? And WHY does asking that question immediately make other Pagans attack me as a "Fluff Bunny History Revisionist", damn it? LOL... Seriously: I've been called that! And, I find being called a "History Revisionist" HIGHLY offensive; most Pagans that use it as a term of abuse simply don't have an actual understanding of the nature of academia, etc.!
Also, it's worth noting-- in spades!-- that it's unusual how keen Hutton is about his allegations for their having been (so he claims) NO pagan survivalism by any stretch of the imagination! Yet...not once did he define what a potential survival might, or could, be! Now, this is a very important question, don't you think? After all, is it not reasonable to put forth the idea that if one is going to academically write something off, then they had better define it, so that others-- if they found evidence in agreement with their standards and definitions-- could bring forth said "evidence" and fashion a remarkible case to the contrary? Moreover, he writes off potential Pagan survivals, as have been pointed out by other scholars [eg. holy wells] as "not a religion" or "not religious". Well, here again, he failed to define what would constitute a "religion"! Would it not have behooved him to define what a "religion" is, and is not? Of course, in the former, animism would be a prime concern for the worship at holy wells, I believe. But, why, I must wonder, is it so important that he take these "definitions" for granted, rather than defining them? Is there some ulterior motive below the surface, here? Enquiring minds certainly would like to know!
207.177.31.20 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 207.177.31.21Anonymous Pagan-Witch & Researcher!
Keith Ward, in his "Is religion dangerous?" actually starts by looking at defining religion, and points out that the term "religion" covers such a broad array of phenomena that it is almost impossible to identify a core of belief or practice common to everything we would identify as a religion. "Is Communism a religion? Or football? Or Scientology? How do we know what a religion is?" (p. 8). That may be why Hutton hesitates to provide a definition; it is next to impossible. Is it a religion to not walk under ladders, throw salt over your shoulder, touch wood for luck, kiss your hand if you see one magpie etc? That is probably why he rules out placed like Holy Wells in his discussion; they have often become places which people may visit, but not in the context of an organised belief system but instead as unattached locations that are part of handed down custom, like the Musgrave ritual in Conan Doyle. -- TonyinJersey 13:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
-- 207.177.31.20 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 207.177.31.21Anonymous Pagan-Witch & Researcher!
Why does the article list Stations of the Sun (with two others) as being published in 2001? Were these ISBNs for paperbacks or reprints? I have the hardback in front of me, and it's from 1996. ( ISBN 0-19-820570-8). The dustjacket for it puts Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles as 1991 and Rise and Fall of Merrie England as 1994. Telsa 14:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC).
I removed the review link by Max Dashu. She is not a historial, she is a professional artist. She only fancies herself as a historian so people will take her extremist revisionist feminism seriously. -- Toadsboon 08:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
An Assesment
Hey guys, I linked to what I have found to be a very important assessment of the scholarship of modern Paganism, written by a freelance historian. He brings up some very important questions the author feels that historians need to address, which they really have not. Now, my phrasing may need to be tweaked, but I have tyried to write it in as objective a tone as possible, while still informing a reader who scans the articles, what this respective link/site is about. 207.177.31.20 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Anonymous Pagan-Witch & Researcher!
199.120.81.45 04:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Anonymous Pagan-Witch Researcher
Narsil27 here. Please, for the love of all things NPOV, delete the Dashu article. It seems highly suspicious to me (an should to anyone else) that the only two active external links are to artciles critical of Ronald Hutton, and which both display a decidedly pro-Wiccan bent. No suprise, given the author of the article, but since when has Wikipedia become a dumping ground for neo-pagan archeological/anthropological pseduotheories casting ancient Europe as an anachronistic left-wing paradise? Reading reams of POV Wikipedia articles (most of them left-leaning)on ancient European religion is a small price to pay for the privilege of having Wikipedia online, but everyone really needs to excercise a bit of ideological self-control. Fuzzypeg - do the right thing. Leave the Dashu link, but deactivate it, and link to an article praising Hutton at the expense of your compatriots. Truth be told, Gimbutas, Adler, and their faction has been sliding down the ladder of serious academia at an exponential rate for a least a decade. That should be made clearer in this article by the inclusion of more balanced external links. Narsil27 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where this Dashu was educated and certainly should not be included in a reference.
83.204.23.239, can you be more specific with the rumors about Prof. Hutton's fictitious work on Homosexuality in Paganism? I removed the earlier (incorrect) information about his future work, and you've put an ammended version back in about 24 hours. Not that I wouldn't buy such a book by Prof. Hutton if it existed, but where are these rumors coming from? Wouldn't it be more useful to e-mail Prof. Hutton and ask him what his next project *is*, instead of listing what he *isn't* working on? John Burridge 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
His next project due out possibly next year (hopefully) is an academic footnoted and more detailed study on the Druids: A History (2007); source, personal email from RH, but also mentioned in introduction to Druids but without timetable.
-- TonyinJersey 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Tony_theprof has reinserted a reference to Hutton's work re: druidry, calling it "sympathetic but revisionist."
I had deleted this as unsourced. Tony reinserted it with a link to the lecture in question. My question was not that the lecture did not exist, but with it being described as " revisionist." While that is a technical term, it (like, for example, "cult") is subject to a certain amount of opprobrium, and calling Hutton's work "revisionist" could indicate that this lecture is of questionable veracity or heavily slanted to a particular POV.
In order to avoid any edit warring, I'd like to open a discussion of possible other ways to phrase this.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The review section has become quite problematic, to the point of having some serious WP:BLP balance problems. There is no distinction made between reviews by historians and reviews by wiccans/neo-pagans, and none of the former are accessible at this time. It's not at all clear that the writers of the latter are notable enough to stand as representatives of their groups. Someone above mentioned Max Dashu, and after pages of Googling I have to say that I can find no worthwhile information about her, other than she has a knack for getting herself mentioned all over the internet.
At the very least I'm inclined to split the two types of reviews apart, so that readers won't be misled into thinking that Asphodel P. Long (for example) was a historian (she was actually a "Goddess activist"). Mangoe ( talk) 05:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In an effort to supply the reader with enough knowledge to make an informed decision, and rather than leaving it up to peripherally linked-to reviews of his work, I sincerely believe that a sub-heading devoted to factually and methodologically critiquing the work of Hutton is necessary. As an example of my concern, it has been my personal experience that anyone that comes to an alternative conclusion to those of Hutton is dismissed out-of-hand; moreover, these individuals praise him for purposefully ommitting whole swaths of data as proof of his so-called "academic rigour"! However, it always seemed evident to me that this is actually proof of a weakness, rather than a strength, because Hutton routinely writes as though he needn't be concerned with actually having to defend his position from counter-data. In fact, he routinely ignores it, when he's demosteably aware of it--presenting it as though it doesn't even exist. Quite honedstly, his writings are full of well-known Logical Fallacies, such as "Special Pleading" and "Observational Selectivity"...all of which are academic no-nos. So, the reader must really be made aware of his extremist positions and polemics. He frequently make declarations that imply that no other scholar believes differently than he--and this simply is not true! While he also puts forth his personal opinion as though it's established fact.
Anyway, I think that Wikipedia would be a fabulous forum for recording these issues, especially when he engages in Logical Fallacies, misrepresents his sources, and his problematic conclusions, etc. These can certainly be documented, in many respect, by citing his books and comparing them with what his sources actually say.
A few instances right off the top of my head is that, while he frequently cites Kieth Thomas as in entire agreement with him, he demonstrably ignores that he (in "Religion and the Decline of Magic") not only regards well cults as a survival of Paganism; but he also heavily discusses the Medieval worship of the gods of the planets!
I his "Pagan Religions", Hutton engages in blatantly Special Pleading where he castigages a scholar (I'd have to look up the exact specs. for it's been a while) for basing an argument on the relative similarities, when the differences are week to the point of being inconsiquential; however, later on, Hutton draws a conclusion basing his argument soley on the similarities between Odin and Christ, when those similarities are far weaker when put up against the strength of the shamanic and Indo-European differences! One would have thought that Hutton would have learned from this account of Special Pleading, but he has apparently engaged in it quite frequently in his book, "Shamanism: Siberian Spirituality & the Western Imagination"!
But, perhaps more telling is his book, "Witches, Druids, and King Arthur": In it he declares, as though it's established fact, that by the end of the sixth-century paganism was dead and gone forever throughout the Mediterannean, having been replaced by Christinaity (ven on a popular level). Now, this is fine, if all of his sources support this view. However, what's not alright is when we find that he has demonstrably mislead his readership. One of Hutton's sources, whom he cites at length, is Prof. Bowersock's brilliant work, "Hellenism in Late Antiquity" (by "Hellenism" he means ancient paganism!). In it, Prof. Bowersock finds, and quotes at length, unequivocal direct source-material that ancient paganism was still flourishing threoughout the Med. by the end of the sixth-century--in fact, it wasn't even on the wane! But, of all the chapters in this book that Hutton clearly cites, this is the ONE chapter that he blatantly ignores! This is demonstrably misleading, on Hutton's part.
I personally urge Wikipedia writers to review his work with a more critical eye, and start to document such behavior within Hutton's texts for the benefit of the readers of Wikipedia.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.81.47 ( talk) 17:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the Druid Network constitutes an adequate source for the claim about Hutton's parentage, but in any case the page cited appears to be empty. Mangoe ( talk) 14:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Almost all of the information in Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles is already presented (and much more succinctly) here. Mannanan51 ( talk) 00:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)mannanan51
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ronald Hutton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that it is added that Ronald Hutton has been the Gresham Professor of Divinity at Gresham College since his appointment in 2022. You can read more about Ronald Hutton and Gresham College here. He is currently giving a lecture series at Gresham College on Finding Britain's Lost Gods here.
I would like to disclose that I work for Gresham College and so I am suggesting this as an edit. Commsgresh ( talk) 14:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Your request did not provide specific directions for the text's emplacement. COI edit requests must include complete and specific descriptions of where the text is to be placed. "Please add X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "Please add X to Y". |
Interngresham ( talk) 14:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)