I come back 24 hours later to a computer and find a lot of discussion here, not all of it civil nor necessarily even related to the thrust of the essay itself. I'll try to reply as much as possible in this comment to the others rather than trying to chase down specific comment threads.
First of all, I should note that if I didn't have people who disagree with me reading my work, I'd be a failed writer. Comments that say "you shouldn't be here if you disagree" are quite contrary to what I'm about. Please don't do this anymore.
Specifically regarding Paul's critiques, which there are a few, I'll respond first about my use of "indigenous." I'm actually quite surprised to need to clarify, as I'm more accustomed to extreme social justice sorts in the US taking umbrage at its use: for them, nothing can be "indigenous" to Europe, and any use of the term related to people in Europe is immediately seen as racist and "white supremacist."
Here I use the term to reference the animist traditions which had developed in relationship to place over thousands of years. Where I live, the animist practices of the Celtic Treveri would be one such "indigenous" practice. Because monotheism has taught people to think in universalizing categories, it's helpful to remember that these were actually multiplicities. There was no "indigenous European animism" but rather countless "indigenous European animisms." And it was these animisms, or what the Christians called "pagan" or "heathen" beliefs, that the Church actively stamped out by direct force and slower conversion.
Regarding the Anglo and Saxon situation in England, it appears to have parallels to the movement of the Franks into Treveri lands, though it was probably more violent there than here. Here, the two peoples merged quite seamlessly, as was very common pre-Christianity. Gods also: Arduinna and Freyj seem to have merged, rather than one displacing the other. Before the Christian conquest of North America, the situation was quite similar for indigenous (use "native" if you need to) peoples there. Thought sometimes one tribe might slaughter another, most often the process was more like the Frankish/Treveri merging.
Once the Franks were Christianized here, however, the situation is quite different. Frankish kings converted by missionaries offering promises of greater power -- just as Roman emperors had -- then did the work of the missionaries for them with swords. It was a highly effective ploy on the part of the missionaries, who everywhere faced resistance and retaliation. Easier to spread the gospel if you've got armies to back you up.
Regarding Patrick and the apparent "gap" of missionary work: there was plenty of conversion occurring before Patrick throughout Europe, but this looked much more like what it always did, as when Theodosius ordered all the pagan shrines destroyed at Mt. Athos to so it could be filled with monasteries instead. That is: it was primarily by force. Paul, you are correct that Patrick initiated a different process, but it can hardly be called "bottom up" because he started first with the conversions of the tuatha. And though he was a slave for six years, in one of the only pieces of writing we can really be certain was probably his, he himself notes he was born to a large land-holding family before being captured by Irish raiders.
Now to the question of moral/immoral, I think it's pretty clear from my entire body of writing that I don't divide people or actions that way, nor do I believe there is even such a think as a "moral" or "immoral" act. In fact, that's a crucial point to keep in mind about monotheism's treatment of those who cremated the remains of their ancestors. For animists, it wasn't a question of it being the "moral" thing to do, but rather "the thing we do." For monotheists, burial wasn't just the "the thing we do" but also "the only thing everyone else should do, too." This is a peculiar feature inherent to monotheism itself, as I've pointed out repeatedly before. Once all other gods are deemed as false or demons, then they must be fought and their followers converted (by coaxing or by force) at the "true" god's behest. Again, this is a peculiar (and singular) feature of all monotheisms, not just Christianity.
Thank you for a fascinating article. I had no idea laws on cremation were, and in some places still are, so strict. In the UK the undertaker just gives you a cardboard tube full of the deceased’s ashes. My parents ashes lie under their favourite apple tree in the garden of what is presently my house. I often stop to talk to or think of them.
I do sometimes find it difficult, as a European, to read some of this anti-Christian stuff. It seems predicated, especially this time around, on a leftist us-vs-them model, which offers up a 'indigenous good, Christians bad' argument, which also seems very American. The idea that the 'indigenous' Europeans were pagan/animist/earth-loving (good) but were then 'colonised' by 'Christians' who were imperial/murderous/opressive (bad) relies on a lot of squinting and rewriting of history. It also relies on the notion that Christianity can not be an 'indigenous' European religion. I would be interested to know what is 'indigenous' and what is not. Are European Christians somehow not 'indigenous'? Were they all 'colonised'? Who got to decide that?
I live in Ireland, for example. How did 'the Christians' colonise Ireland? No blood was shed here at all to 'convert' anyone. The most famous evangelist was a freed slave. And who are these 'indigenous Europeans' and where did they come from, and what were their 'pagan' religions? Evidence for human sacrifice (abolished by Christians) is fairly clear in some cultures, and is attested to in Ireland. When the 'indigneous' Anglo-Saxons arrived in (ie invaded) what was to become England, didn't they 'colonise' the Romano-British (human sacrifice also attested to there) and replace the Celtic river gods with the Germanic gods of war and thunder?
I could go on, but as a European former pagan who was later 'colonised' by Christianity I'm seeing a rather different story. A lot of colonisation and brutality, by both Christians and 'pagans', a lot of battles over truth, and no obvious moral/immoral dividing line between the horrible colonising foreign Christians and the virtuous, indigenous, Earth-loving Europeans. Sometimes I worry about where these narratives can lead.
Excellent and informative piece. Olly is right to observe there are few rules around scattering ashes here in the UK, although sometimes i wonder if there there should be a few more i.e. It's not that uncommon (in the busy Peak District at least) to find piles of gritty scatterings along with impromptu mini-shrines in popular sites and 'picnic spots' - which can be touching, grimly amusing or disconcerting - especially on a windy day. The death forests sound like an excellent move. Overall I'm with you Rhyd in that dealing with our dead should be a choice for those left living irrespective of faith. The 'Godless' libertarian approach is playing out in the UK right now, for better or worse.
I have my tree picked out in the redwoods of the Santa Cruz mountains of California and my son is delegated to deliver the ashes. Oh, the horrors of humanity from bones stacked in churches to the skull rack containing thousands of skulls at the base of the Aztec’s chief sacrificial pyramid. At least Christianity is supposed to make do with only one human sacrifice, though when the church got its hands on political power it couldn’t resist the temptation of the expiatory delights of capital punishment. Thank God that power has for the most part be removed. Thomas Cahill, author of How the Irish Saved Civilization, thinks the Irish embraced Christ because they found a better deal than what they had in their religion, and it seems from ancient records the Celtic Christian saints were handy with miracles, out magicking the competition.
Thank you for the fascinating article. I do like the idea of scattering the ashes under trees or into flowing water as we did with my parents in law in the UK. I am not even sure if that was legal at the time. The bit I have real problems with is the actual cremation. Not that I would be afraid that my dead body could feel the heat but the thought that it would be processed by an industrial unit, frankly horrifies me. I actually believe it would be hard to insist that you would not want to be cremated as I believe a buriel and a plot would cost a fair bit.
I had no idea there was so much difficulty about burial in parts of Europe. Over here in the US we imagine you to be less religiously strict, but on the subject of death we're currently having small arguments over much more exotic ways of treating human remains, from composting to liquefaction, under theologies ranging from neo/pseudo-paganism to questions of efficiency and utility to the machine. Hah.
I come back 24 hours later to a computer and find a lot of discussion here, not all of it civil nor necessarily even related to the thrust of the essay itself. I'll try to reply as much as possible in this comment to the others rather than trying to chase down specific comment threads.
First of all, I should note that if I didn't have people who disagree with me reading my work, I'd be a failed writer. Comments that say "you shouldn't be here if you disagree" are quite contrary to what I'm about. Please don't do this anymore.
Specifically regarding Paul's critiques, which there are a few, I'll respond first about my use of "indigenous." I'm actually quite surprised to need to clarify, as I'm more accustomed to extreme social justice sorts in the US taking umbrage at its use: for them, nothing can be "indigenous" to Europe, and any use of the term related to people in Europe is immediately seen as racist and "white supremacist."
Here I use the term to reference the animist traditions which had developed in relationship to place over thousands of years. Where I live, the animist practices of the Celtic Treveri would be one such "indigenous" practice. Because monotheism has taught people to think in universalizing categories, it's helpful to remember that these were actually multiplicities. There was no "indigenous European animism" but rather countless "indigenous European animisms." And it was these animisms, or what the Christians called "pagan" or "heathen" beliefs, that the Church actively stamped out by direct force and slower conversion.
Regarding the Anglo and Saxon situation in England, it appears to have parallels to the movement of the Franks into Treveri lands, though it was probably more violent there than here. Here, the two peoples merged quite seamlessly, as was very common pre-Christianity. Gods also: Arduinna and Freyj seem to have merged, rather than one displacing the other. Before the Christian conquest of North America, the situation was quite similar for indigenous (use "native" if you need to) peoples there. Thought sometimes one tribe might slaughter another, most often the process was more like the Frankish/Treveri merging.
Once the Franks were Christianized here, however, the situation is quite different. Frankish kings converted by missionaries offering promises of greater power -- just as Roman emperors had -- then did the work of the missionaries for them with swords. It was a highly effective ploy on the part of the missionaries, who everywhere faced resistance and retaliation. Easier to spread the gospel if you've got armies to back you up.
Regarding Patrick and the apparent "gap" of missionary work: there was plenty of conversion occurring before Patrick throughout Europe, but this looked much more like what it always did, as when Theodosius ordered all the pagan shrines destroyed at Mt. Athos to so it could be filled with monasteries instead. That is: it was primarily by force. Paul, you are correct that Patrick initiated a different process, but it can hardly be called "bottom up" because he started first with the conversions of the tuatha. And though he was a slave for six years, in one of the only pieces of writing we can really be certain was probably his, he himself notes he was born to a large land-holding family before being captured by Irish raiders.
Now to the question of moral/immoral, I think it's pretty clear from my entire body of writing that I don't divide people or actions that way, nor do I believe there is even such a think as a "moral" or "immoral" act. In fact, that's a crucial point to keep in mind about monotheism's treatment of those who cremated the remains of their ancestors. For animists, it wasn't a question of it being the "moral" thing to do, but rather "the thing we do." For monotheists, burial wasn't just the "the thing we do" but also "the only thing everyone else should do, too." This is a peculiar feature inherent to monotheism itself, as I've pointed out repeatedly before. Once all other gods are deemed as false or demons, then they must be fought and their followers converted (by coaxing or by force) at the "true" god's behest. Again, this is a peculiar (and singular) feature of all monotheisms, not just Christianity.
Thank you for a fascinating article. I had no idea laws on cremation were, and in some places still are, so strict. In the UK the undertaker just gives you a cardboard tube full of the deceased’s ashes. My parents ashes lie under their favourite apple tree in the garden of what is presently my house. I often stop to talk to or think of them.
I do sometimes find it difficult, as a European, to read some of this anti-Christian stuff. It seems predicated, especially this time around, on a leftist us-vs-them model, which offers up a 'indigenous good, Christians bad' argument, which also seems very American. The idea that the 'indigenous' Europeans were pagan/animist/earth-loving (good) but were then 'colonised' by 'Christians' who were imperial/murderous/opressive (bad) relies on a lot of squinting and rewriting of history. It also relies on the notion that Christianity can not be an 'indigenous' European religion. I would be interested to know what is 'indigenous' and what is not. Are European Christians somehow not 'indigenous'? Were they all 'colonised'? Who got to decide that?
I live in Ireland, for example. How did 'the Christians' colonise Ireland? No blood was shed here at all to 'convert' anyone. The most famous evangelist was a freed slave. And who are these 'indigenous Europeans' and where did they come from, and what were their 'pagan' religions? Evidence for human sacrifice (abolished by Christians) is fairly clear in some cultures, and is attested to in Ireland. When the 'indigneous' Anglo-Saxons arrived in (ie invaded) what was to become England, didn't they 'colonise' the Romano-British (human sacrifice also attested to there) and replace the Celtic river gods with the Germanic gods of war and thunder?
I could go on, but as a European former pagan who was later 'colonised' by Christianity I'm seeing a rather different story. A lot of colonisation and brutality, by both Christians and 'pagans', a lot of battles over truth, and no obvious moral/immoral dividing line between the horrible colonising foreign Christians and the virtuous, indigenous, Earth-loving Europeans. Sometimes I worry about where these narratives can lead.
Excellent and informative piece. Olly is right to observe there are few rules around scattering ashes here in the UK, although sometimes i wonder if there there should be a few more i.e. It's not that uncommon (in the busy Peak District at least) to find piles of gritty scatterings along with impromptu mini-shrines in popular sites and 'picnic spots' - which can be touching, grimly amusing or disconcerting - especially on a windy day. The death forests sound like an excellent move. Overall I'm with you Rhyd in that dealing with our dead should be a choice for those left living irrespective of faith. The 'Godless' libertarian approach is playing out in the UK right now, for better or worse.
I have my tree picked out in the redwoods of the Santa Cruz mountains of California and my son is delegated to deliver the ashes. Oh, the horrors of humanity from bones stacked in churches to the skull rack containing thousands of skulls at the base of the Aztec’s chief sacrificial pyramid. At least Christianity is supposed to make do with only one human sacrifice, though when the church got its hands on political power it couldn’t resist the temptation of the expiatory delights of capital punishment. Thank God that power has for the most part be removed. Thomas Cahill, author of How the Irish Saved Civilization, thinks the Irish embraced Christ because they found a better deal than what they had in their religion, and it seems from ancient records the Celtic Christian saints were handy with miracles, out magicking the competition.
Fascinating. A subject I’ve increasingly become curious about 🙏🏼❤️🩹🙏🏼
Thank you for the fascinating article. I do like the idea of scattering the ashes under trees or into flowing water as we did with my parents in law in the UK. I am not even sure if that was legal at the time. The bit I have real problems with is the actual cremation. Not that I would be afraid that my dead body could feel the heat but the thought that it would be processed by an industrial unit, frankly horrifies me. I actually believe it would be hard to insist that you would not want to be cremated as I believe a buriel and a plot would cost a fair bit.
I had no idea there was so much difficulty about burial in parts of Europe. Over here in the US we imagine you to be less religiously strict, but on the subject of death we're currently having small arguments over much more exotic ways of treating human remains, from composting to liquefaction, under theologies ranging from neo/pseudo-paganism to questions of efficiency and utility to the machine. Hah.