Hi Nagasiva and Ben,

>>I couldn't agree more, and this was one of the reasons that i sought to
differentiate between the artistic (participative) and the academic
(reflective) aspects of the engagement of magic or religion. surely this is
one of the areas of concern for the academic community admitting
participants into its midst.<<

Not all academics stick to the reflective aspects of magic or religion. I
think it is the assumption on the part of practitioners that 'academics' are
their polar opposite - i.e. non-practitioners who just think and write about
the topic(s) when they are not necessarily that. For example I came from a
Pagan background to academia, specifically in order to find out the
differences between what is claimed to be history by contemporary Pagans and
what academics studying ancient religions say about the topic(s). 

>>Ironically I thought this development of a new iconography though
unselfconscious cross fertilisation a signal that modern Odinism was indeed
a living faith. Rather more interesting than modern pagans asking historians
and archaeologists what they should adopt as their beliefs.<<

Sure, but do many practitioners actually ask such things of historians?
Perhaps in the UK where you actually have more historians engaging with the
"Pagan scene". Practitioners should perhaps do some historical research
however, before they claim that they are practising a historically authentic
version of the religion/ritual in question (if they are claiming such a
thing).

>this had a recent crescendo in the controversy surrounding (and authority
extended to) Margaret Murray, at least in the Neopagan communty. she was an
egyptologist writing on the subject of European anthropology, outside of her
field by my recall, and there have been twin extensions therefore from her
work: one from Neopagans who have taken her texts and adopted them as
seminal to their theology and mythos, and one from academics who consider
what follows after her as suspect and unreliable in terms of the facts. 
these tines may be closing over time.<<

Well it is suspect from a historical angle, but that doesn't mean it can't
be the pleasurable fantasy history of a new religion. I suppose.

>>when the shamans consult anthropological or archaeological data, then use
these to bolster their attempted revival or reconstruction of what they
believe were pre-Christian magical or religious activities, then we may
begin to encounter a level of self-consciousness that is truly exciting and
confusing.<<

Well I think this is exciting. It doesn't hurt to refer to the academic
study of the religion/spiritual practice one purports to be practising does
it? I don't think practitioners need to feel in opposition to those who
study their practices. As a contemporary Pagan I absolutely relish the
academic work I find (and create) concerning the histories - or lack thereof
- of modern Pagan religion(s). I don't like to think I'm believing a false
history, it bugs me. Creating new aspects of a 'tradition' is a different
thing entirely.


~Caroline Tully.
http://necropolisnow.blogspot.com/