Dr. R. B. Hutton: paganism and academia

[helenic]

I first heard of Ronald Hutton through romauld, whose recommendation was reinforced by the word of several other friends. Predictably, several of them were academics, but several weren't, which was interesting. And all of the people who recommended his work to me have at least some personal (as well as academic) connection with paganism. He seems to have done what very few academics have done; successfully, eruditely and popularly bridged the gap.

I'm starting with The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy, 1991 (Blackwells). Dr Hutton was the Reader of British History at Bristol at the time of writing (to my knowledge, he still is), and it is reviewed on the back cover by two publications, the Times Literary Supplement and The Wiccan. Again, interesting. It covers its subject matter chronologically, referring to the whole continent at first. This is at least partly because of the scarcity of Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and earlier Neolithic archaeological evidence, but also isn't surprising as (according to Hutton) the British archipelago only separated from the major land mass around 7000 BC. His first chapter is punningly titled "The Mysteries Begin (c. 30,000-c. 5000 BC)". The first three chapters are mostly descriptive, an overview of the evidence: cave art, tombs, earthworks and stone monuments, henges, rock carvings. His suggestions about the conclusions one could draw from this evidence are persistently cautious. He is happier presenting an overview of previous scholarship, the arguments made so far and their pros and cons, than coming up with new theories. He is a fine rhetorician, and his presentation makes his caution seem eminently sensible given the varied and fragmented nature of the evidence. He is also surprisingly easy to read, even when all he's doing is laying out statistics about the number, variation and distribution of a particular type of passage grave. His descriptions of particular mysterious features of these sites are especially well-drawn, and strangely compelling. And he is amusingly dry about the conclusions leapt to by over-enthusiasts, raising an eyebrow a number of times over, for example, the fame of Stonehenge.

Which is all fascinating and I know I'm not going to remember all these details, but the overview is very useful and I'm learning stuff. He's a good enough writer that I don't find myself challenging him at all, but then, his arguments are moderate and coherent. I don't know enough about the topic to disagree with his cautiously ventured interpretations, which usually offer a range of possibilities before repeating, sometimes with a slight sigh and sometimes with an excited gleam, that there is not enough evidence to know for sure. He acknowledges throughout the arguments and ideas of what he refers to as "alternative archaeologists" or "earth mystics". Admittedly, his treatment of them is mostly critical, but it is also interested and respectful. He refers to various proponents of such myths as the prehistorical "earth mother" religion, or the sophisticated astronomical alignment of the stone monuments in Britain, as "visionary", and emphasises the contribution that such writers have made to history, for all the flaws of their interpretations. He also contextualises their studies in such a way as to illuminate their agendas and bias.

His awareness, and replies to, these "popular" writers is unusual in the elitist world of academia, and is somewhat pointedly directed at his fellows who have dismissed any scholarship they consider "unorthodox", but his dry criticism of idealist narratives is very much for the benefit of their followers. His book is aimed at both sceptical scholars of paganism, and followers of the religions who are not familiar with the relevant research. He is not indulgent with people who prefer the popular theories to the ones better supported by the evidence, but neither is he scornful. He re-iterates, for his colleagues, the impenetrability of academia, pointing out that for most people to believe readily accessible myths rather than dry scholarship is perfectly understandable. This might perhaps be condescending were it not for the fact that this book is an attempt to transcend that very distinction; to construct a narrative that criticises popular and misleading interpretations, but is perfectly comprehensible to the non-academic.

Halfway through Chapter 4, "Into the Darkness", he begins to shifts gear. It's slow at first. He's been discussing "the relationship between Bronze Age ritual monuments and heavenly bodies". He carefully and respectfully breaks down epic theories that every ritual monument was aligned with a celestial body and acted as an astronomical observatory, or that there was a universal lunar or solar religion demonstrable through the orientation of stone constructions. He then notes that the proponents of such theories, while their effect on academia has pretty much faded, had a "more enduring impact and [went on to] win less critical followers in the parallel world of 'alternative archaeology' and 'earth mysteries'".

And delicately, rationally, sympathetically, he begins to engage with writing hitherto wholly dismissed by academics. His comments about this dismissal are direct; while he acknowledges that often these writers are factually ignorant, they "deserve some sympathy for their claim that orthodox prehistorians do not engage with them directly." Just as he has presented archaeological scholarship in such a way as to be comprehensible to interested amateurs, so now he starts to present the ideas of pagan writers in such a way as to be intelligible to academics. (He is very, very, careful throughout not to use the word "pagan" of modern writers.) And while he does not indulge their errors, he determinedly highlights those writers that are self-aware, and those aspects of their work that have value.

"As they themselves are often at pains to point out, 'earth mystics' and 'alternative archaeologists' hold a wide range of beliefs. Yet it is still possible to identify certain common characteristics. One is an intense sense of the romance and beauty of the prehistoric past and an equally profound impulse to identify personally with it. A passage from Paul Devereux and Ian Thompson is entirely typical:

"During the fieldwork for this book, we camped alongside a tumulus on a ley in idyllic countryside. A full moon rose, silhouetting the mound. Such was the sense of primordial power and kinship with our remote ancestors that there could not be a moment's doubt concerning our work. While mathematicians and certain archaeologists baulk at such reactions, others with recognise the validity of our experience." (The Ley Hunter's Companion, London, 1979, p.41)

And then Ronald Hutton, pointedly augments this subtlely chosen passage with a challenge to the academic reader: "But then, most academic prehistorians have had that sort of experience too: it is one of the reasons for their choice of career" (p182, my italics).

He is not shy about the power of the material he is studying. Nor is he shy about criticising either his academic or non-academic colleagues of pagan scholarship. He is both informed and intuitive, and he is careful, sensitive, forthright and honest. And he is very, very clever, both in his analysis of prehistory and prehistoriography, and his rhetorical presentation of it. As someone who is simultaneously a sceptical post-modern academic and a thoughtful, intuitive (if at times slightly fluffy) paganish type, who holds both credulous ignorance and cynical arrogance in equal disregard, it's wonderful to behold.

Of course, Dr Hutton very wisely makes no mention of his own religious affiliation. He hints that he has learned a lot personally from his research, but if he does hold pagan beliefs he keeps them, as is appropriate, wholly out of his professional research. His open-mindedness and critical honesty does him credit, and the reader can only speculate as to its origin. I'm only up to Chapter 4 of The Pagan Religions, and I have four more books of his to read after this. I shall definitely be keeping you updated.

Comments

[whatifoundthere.livejournal.com]

So, so, so much to talk about! I wish I were there so that we could muse and argue and discuss over wine. For now, though I will simply share an anecdote --

A full moon rose, silhouetting the mound.

My dissertation advisor -- a lovely and brilliant woman, but very prim and proper and not much like me in personality -- once told me about a book she had assigned in her Greek Religions class where the author, who was a little "too" invested in paganism, described going into some prehistoric decorated cave and masturbating while thinking of the Great Goddess. My advisor marvelled at the fact that her students never mentioned this passage in their papers, even once in all the years she taught the book. Whether it's because they couldn't relate to it, or they were too embarrassed/puritanical to bring it up, or thought that my advisor would think poorly of them for bringing it up (though she did assign it, didn't she?), she never figured out.

My advisor is very rational and academic, and I think she considers Romantic revivals of paganism interesting as an object of study rather than identifying with them personally (though I must add the caveat that I do not know what goes on in her heart of hearts, and I wonder whether my students assume the same thing about me). But that story about the weird masturbator-goddess-woman gave me pause; why did she assign it? I am sure her intention was not to mock the author, since my advisor is much too decent and respectful for that. But she hardly wanted to teach people to deal with religious studies in some completely unhinged, experiential way either; she had no patience for bad scholarship and her approach was always anchored in ancient evidence. I think she may have resembled Hutton in this regard, though her interest was in Greek religion rather than Celtic stuff.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

I wish I were there so that we could muse and argue and discuss over wine.
Aaagh I know. Maybe you should get a research travel grant and I can meet you in Athens next year for coffee and ouzo? Robin Osborne was trying to talk me out of Canada for PhD. I'm definitely set on the travelling; it would be so good for me (not to mention good for certain relationships, I think).

As for the anecdote: yeah... it's interesting. It could also be that she studies the Greeks and therefore is obviously a bit obsessed with sex, although she hides it well under her primness. But I think the "romantic interest" theory is more likely from your description.

Since posting the above I have discovered another even more delightful Huttonism. While writing on the work of Michael Dames, an 'alternative archaeologist':

"The climax of his vision is the discovery of a great figure of the Mother Goddess delineated by the Neolithic monuments and natural features of the Avebury area. The trouble with is this that it is a matter of joining dots selectively on a map. So many Neolithic sites and natural features have been recorded in this district that a great many different patterns can be 'discovered' by the same technique. I myself produced a perfectly nice unicorn on it, and thank Mr Dames warmly for the sheer childish pleasure of that experience." (131-132)

Bless! :)

[whatifoundthere.livejournal.com]

Well, I will be in Rome between May and June of next year, godwilling, so maybe we can find some way to bridge East and West? How sublime would that be?

After a lively discussion over ouzo (raki, to us Turks), then we can pull out an archaeological map and connect the dots into all sorts of obscene shapes.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

well, I have £550 to go to Rome or Greece. The Mphil is on Greeky stuff and I've never been to Greece so it seemed the obvious choice, but perhaps I could squeeze both in... unless "between May and June" coincides with my thesis being due. Which I suspect it might. Bugger.

Obscene shapes! Archaeology specialises in them. I'm finding it hard not to snigger every time I read the phrase "chalk balls". It just sounds so South Parkesque.

[ixwin.livejournal.com]

I myself produced a perfectly nice unicorn

Oh, that's adorable!

[ifimust.livejournal.com]

If you look at Hutton, R. (2003). Witches, Druids and King Arthur. London, Hambledon and London Ltd., however, he makes his own interest clear - IIRC (without being bothered to go find it on the shelf) he mentions being a second generation Pagan.

And as above -this calls for wine. :)

[libellum.livejournal.com]

now that is interesting - and unexpected. Both that he's second generation rather than a convert (which was my suspicion) and that he's prepared to talk about it in an academic text.

I've just realised this review is googleable and there's a chance he'll find it. I'm trying to work out if I mind. I think the review itself is fine being public, but I'm not sure about the speculation about his religion ...

[perplexed-seal.livejournal.com]

It was discussed in URP a few months ago, I think Cursuswalker posted some detail on Huttons' particular path.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to try and search for it, I shall take your word for it :)

Did it fit with what velvetfox writes below?

[ifimust.livejournal.com]

IIRC it's been in Pagan Dawn as well but as I'm not a subscriber, I only know this through hearsay.

And I should think he's long past worrying about reviews of his books or much else - the web must be full of the things! :)

[libellum.livejournal.com]

true :)

I'd be interested in reading the academic reception actually...

[wyrdrune.livejournal.com]

Thank you for that. I've been wondering what to read once I've got the problem with this bloody book out of the way. That question has been neatly answered. :-)

[libellum.livejournal.com]

yay! I can bring it to your housewarming if you want to borrow it? Or do you want to buy a copy? It's pretty cheap second hand on amazon.

Hutton says:

[velvetfox.livejournal.com]

I have never felt myself to be on a path of any kind, as my life has more the quality of being carried downstream on a raging river full of rocks, so that all I have to do is try to steer a course through the endless rapids and enjoy the thrill of the experience. It may be helpful to add, however, that the parent who brought me up, my mother, was a Pagan...

I'd be happy to talk to you about him more but not in writing.

And if you want to borrow any of his books, I have them.

Re: Hutton says:

[libellum.livejournal.com]

oooh, now that *is* interesting (and more what I'd have expected from what I've read so far). When/where did he write that?

Thanks for the offer :) I have Stations of the Sun, Triumph of the Moon and Shamans. I thought I bought Witches, Druids and King Arthur as well, but if I have it hasn't arrived yet.

Re: Hutton says:

[velvetfox.livejournal.com]

That's from an interview with a druid group. He also did a great interview about the gunpowder plot which I found fascinating, because it fits in with a book I'm writing. I'm about to write to him to beg help with a particular misunderstanding :)

IMO speculation on his spiritual path is not constructive.

I have the druids book by him, but not the shaman one.

[ifimust.livejournal.com]

Thinking about this as I wait for other things...

You might also enjoy
Taylor (1997). The Prehistory Of Sex. 1996 London, Fourth estate.
It's almost as old as PRBI, which means it's out of date, but it's interesting.

I don't know if you'd *enjoy* Taylor, T. (2002). The Buried Soul: How humans invented death. London, Fourth Estate. - and certainly don't read it while eating - but it might be a useful counterpart, particularly as he talks so much (and so much more recently) about the bog bodies.

And seriously, read the latest one of Hutton's - because in it he muses not only on the influence of Christianity on Paganism (early Christianity and NeoPlatonism, not current stuff) but his own reception as an academic, the aftermath of the whole Lurhman episode (from which any number of people have suffered, she says bitterly), and other such interesting and quasi autobiographical subjects.

Needless to say, you're welcome to borrow any/all of these, which makes a good argument for you coming here. :)

(And just as an added enticement, you really might enjoy: Oates, C. and Wood, J. (1998). A Coven of Scholars: Margaret Murray and Her Working Methods. Folklore Society Archive Series, no. 1.) :)

[libellum.livejournal.com]

In which ways are PRBI out of date? .... Oh, I daresay I'll find out when I read his later work. I don't really have enough time to properly cross-reference bibliography, I have other reading to do...

The Taylor sounds fascinating. I like bizarre burial anthropology.

Which is the latest one of Hutton's, then, and what's the Lurhman episode? I'm afraid you're talking over my head again m'dear...

[ifimust.livejournal.com]

The latest one is the Druids and King Arthur one.

Tanya Lurhman was/is an anthropologist. She studied magic users in London.

She got all the proper permissions, etc., but it seems that she was *very* good at being part of groups and not everyone who let her into their groups, worked with her, etc. was overly pleased with what she wrote about them, which, in some opinions, borders on the sarcastic and the making-fun-of.

Hutton says, rightly, that it soured relationships between some groups and academia, and left many more within Paganism leery of academics, particularly anyone they thought MIGHT be "studying" them. The process of getting research approved by ethics committees, getting proper permissions from the researched (which Lurhman did, to be fair) and so on, eg the safeguards to the researched, are not that well known and Hutton speaks of his own and others' work being hindered by the lingering suspicion from Lurhman's work.

[robert-jones.livejournal.com]

It sounds very interesting. I may try to read it some time.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

I'd be very happy to lend it to you :)