Months created by women?

Yes I am asking YOU that. You said ' one of the reasons pagan's disliked christianity was because it was perceived of as weak.' I am asking YOU where that is recorded and how you know it - is there evidence of that or is that just someone's theory? Did you just read it somewhere on the internet once?

The reason I ask is I find utterly amazing is how my musings/understanding/ interpretations are shot down as 'utter rubbish' and then concrete statements are made with nothing backing them up other than 'I've looked into it'.

Either have a discussion where we can share our interpretations respectfully or provide the evidence of your superior knowlege and truth.

Information has also passed through down through oral traditions: songs, fables and ceremonies. Part of which allows us to make interpretations and discuss possibilities.

And no, I don't really think ''that people in pre-Christian Britain were lacking in interest in power, control, domination, the collection of wealth? And that these things were unrelated to their religious worship and beliefs ''

Have I said that? Im getting quite sick of having words shoved in my mouth so people can take some sort of higher intellectual ground.

Of course those things have always been a part of humanity in varying degrees, however the Roman catholic church was very good at dominating, taking land and wealth. Look at the gold adorned buildings they have left behind, every where, look at the vatican, where all the wealth flowed.

My partner’s and my periods have never ‘synced’, despite us having spent pretty much 24 hours together, 7 days a week throughout lock down. Only anecdotal, of course, but I imagine there are equal number of anecdotal accounts on each side.

Prehistoric women wouldn’t have had periods every 28 days. As recently as 100 years ago it was commonplace for women to have a period only once every 3-4 mths. Prehistoric women started their periods at 18/19, had a menopause in their mid-twenties, and if lucky, lived to 30. Periods were rare. Fertility was rare. That’s why prehistoric communities worshipped birth. It was only after agricultural communities began to form and our diets changed that fertility patterns increased.

You literally can’t track seasons without tracking the moon. That’s why ancient cultures had agricultural based names for each moon of the year even after they adopted solar calendars.

Prehistoric cultures likely had names for moons too but based around the migration patterns of the herds they hunted and the wild plants they gathered. Because you literally cannot track when the herds would be in their summer grazing areas without tracking moons.

No prehistoric woman is going to need to know 28 day cycles. The 28 day cycle for menstruation was literally invented by a Victorian doctor who decided that this was the average cycle length for women, and the average gestation was also 40 weeks. He did this with no scientific study whatsoever. Then when the BC pill was invented, the manufacturers simply used this 28 day “standard” pulled out of some man’s arse number to artificially induce a 28 day cycle on women. Today, we think this is natural…it’s not. It’s a construct. An artificial overlay.

We know that actual natural menstrual cycles vary from 25-32 days. They are not 28days. We know too the prehistoric women likely had very irregular periods due to malnutrition and STIs, so the idea of prehistoric women even having a regular period of any number of days is preposterous.

The moon, however, was a regular, infallible 28 day cycle in prehistory (extending to 29 days by Ancient times) and tracking it was necessary to know when you need to migrate to location x to hunt the migratory herds, to know when to be in location y to harvest the wild rye or yams or whatever, to know when to scatter the wild seeds for next year, to know when the fish would start coming up the rivers in spring. You can’t know this without tracking the moons.

Stonehenge is a lunar and solar calendar, it’s not tracking periods. The handheld scored bone and stone lunar calendars were for easy transport to take with you. The prehistoric equivalent of having a watch instead of going to London to look at Big Ben.

Exactly. In some cases it absolutely was forced conversion, such as the Jesuit missionaries in New Spain when the Spanish conquered and colonised most of the American continents. There it was definitely a militaristic conversion backed up with genocide and the infamous atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition. Religion caused most of the Native American rebellions in New Spain.

The Roman Catholic Church was very militarily aggressive and that’s how they got dominance over the other Christian Churches in many parts of the world. They did formal crusades against the Celtic Christian Church, the French Cathars, the Orthodox Greek Church, the Nicean Church and the Coptic Church. Once Protestantism started, they initiated wars between Catholic countries against the Huguenots and Calvinists (ie. French and Spanish invasions of the Netherlands) and also the Anglicans (England).

In a lot of ways, Henry VIII Church of England was a return to the Celtic church much of the British kingdoms had before the Roman Catholic Church became supreme. As one key feature of the Celtic church was that priests could marry and abbesses were just below/reported direct to bishops. In the Roman Catholic Church, priests had to be celibate and an abbess was of lower rank than the most junior priest.

I think what’s interesting about the ancient Romans is that they also brought Gods/Goddesses from other parts of the Roman Empire to Britain. They were not fussed about everyone must worship this one God or one set of Gods/Goddesses. Mithras was a Persian God, and the Romans adopted him and there was a temple to Mithras built in London to worship Mithras. They also brought over Isis, an Egyptian goddess, as evidenced by devotional lamps found scattered about Britain and an altar dedicated to her in London.

Well in the nicest possible way I disagree it's preposterous. Imagine back before there is such a thing as a calendar. Mankind's earliest known effort at a calendar in a piece of bone with 28 notches on it.

Sandi's (male) lecturer called it 'Man's first primitive attempts at a calendar' and a lecture hall full of students didn't query or argue. But later thinking about it and who precisely it is in this band of stone age hunter gathers who would have so invested in knowing when 28 days had passed Sandi rather wondered whether it might not have been more appropriate to call it 'women's first primitive attempts at a calendar'

Complicated stuff comes from simple stuff. Tracking seasons is agriculture, tracking things by the moon - 28 days is at least in part about periods

Yeah, the idea that Christianity was a militaristic converting religion wherever it went just isn't particularly accurate. Often it appealed to people precisely because it was less violent and more gentle than what they already had, that's why it especially appealed to people like slaves and women.

I think sometimes people get confused because there was much more focus on leaders converting and their followers going along with it - but that really reflects a different approach to individualism. Religion wasn't seen as personal to the degree we see it.

Focussing on the Britons, the Druidic religion that was here before the Roman conquest (Romans were pagan then too), did not have written records as the sacred knowledge was done orally over some twenty years of training. We do know that the Celt leadership were the nobles and the druids, both of which included females, but were overall still patriarchal in nature. The druids were priest/priestesses and also acted as judges and keepers of law. The invading pagan Romans didn’t care much about the Britons religion except to be disgusted by and outlaw human sacrifice which the Druids were recorded to be rather fond of doing. The Romans also did not like any competition for the role of law giver/judge and so eventually ended up sending legions to slaughter all druids and druids in training at the Druidic Centre- the Holy Isle of Angelsey. (The Roman battle report lists female druids in black flitting among the defenders’ ranks ). They then killed any Druid male or female on sight while occupying and colonising. This was the start of persecution of “witches” as any woman with the skills linked to druids was suspect.

During colonisation, religion in Britain underwent the same pattern as other Roman colonies. Temples were built to joint British/Roman Gods & Goddesses where there was natural overlap and the populace were encourage to adopt Roman “names” for the Gods/Goddesses they’d always worshipped. For example, the complex at Bath included a temple to Minerva Sulis…Minerva being the Roman name for the Goddess of wisdom and Sulis being the Celtic name for the Goddess of water and healing. The Romans often set up these dualities where one of their Gods/Goddesses was marketed as being the same God/Goddess as what the natives worshipped. Then they’d build temples to this God/Goddess with both their Roman and Celtic names and iconography so that a worshipper in the temple at Bath was worshipping the Goddess Sulis Minerva…two in one.

And yes of course, wealth and domination mattered both to the Celts and the Romans. The elite Celtic women (nobles and Druids) had more freedom & public power before the Romans. After the Romans the women druids ceased to exist and the Celtic women nobles were pushed into the same box as the Roman women nobles. However, Celtic women did not by our standards have anything close to equality with Celtic men. It was still a very patriarchal society.

The story is different in Ireland as the Romans never got there….so the Druidic religion continued until Christianity appeared. But Christians (St Patrick & company) didn’t wage a genocide against the Druids like the Romans had in Britain. There was no military occupation to do so. It was peaceful missionary type of conversion. There are accounts of a Druidic Priestess of Brigid (who was called Brigid in honour of the Goddess) who converted to Christianity and became one of the first Abesses and was later canonised as the Saint Brigid. So the Druids themselves stayed as religious leaders in the new religion.

The Celtic church was a serious competitor to the Roman Catholic Church and that’s a long discussion in and of itself as to how the Roman church snuffed out the Celtic church. Suffice to say that early crusades involved killing other ‘heretic’ Christians as much as nonChristians.

Exactly right. I alluded to this upthread. Their cycles would have been irregular due to malnutrition and STIs and pregnancy/breastfeeding would have resulted in pauses to menstruation. It’s not a reliable way to mark time.

Calendars invented in prehistoric times were lunar based, and then in the transition from prehistoric to historic times, calendars became solar or lunisolar which are more accurate.

What do you mean, "what pagans liked"? We know about historic people through the written records left behind by themselves and others, and by the archaeological records. That's how we know what we do about their religious practices as well.

Do you really think that people in pre-Christian Briton, even pre-Roman Briton, was lacking in interest in power, control, domination, the collection of wealth? And that these things were unrelated to their religious worship and beliefs?

Fertility was worshipped because it was rare. Prehistoric women, on the whole, only had 1-2 children before they died. Nomadic hunter gatherer tribes that still exist follow more comfortable lifestyles but even then it’s rare for a woman to have more than 3-4 kids from 18-30.

Menstruation calendars, from my understanding, would have been useless for prehistoric women because they menstruated so little. This idea of a monthly cycle is fairly new - most women throughout have been so malnourished that it was normal to have as few as 6-4-8 periods a year. Prehistoric women often didn’t even have that as their diets would have ensured menstruation wouldn’t have started until 18/19 - I’m sure I read somewhere that most PW only ever gave birth to one or two living children before dying.

Im not sure who believes paganism was about 'love and mercy and forgiveness and universal acceptance'? Was it not simply earth and nature worship, worship of the land the elements, the moon and sun, of seasons. That which is tangible and in front of the eyes.
Life and death go hand in hand. Female and male as part of the life cycle.

Then christianity came along, which was worship of an intangible entity in the sky, a ruler, and it was a means of control, domination, and collection of wealth...

We are coming out of the other side only recently... Into what?

Im intrigued to know how and where it is recorded what pagans liked?

And just apart from the patriarchy business - people should realize that many pagan religions, including those in the UK, were hugely violent and not especially inclined towards love and mercy and forgiveness and universal acceptance and all that? Blood feuds, torture, really unpleasant types of what was understood as magic, and human sacrifice were not strange to many pagan religions.

I won't argue that they took a lot from nature - which is also not kind or merciful or accepting. Yes, it can be beautiful and inspiring but it is also full of pain, cruel deaths, and what seems like meaningless suffering.

One of the reason some pagans disliked Christianity was that it was perceived as soft and weak.

I stick by my initial words: and i want to be specific here to UK paganism because it is what I know, i cannot speak for other regions. Uk pagan heathen religions were goddess worshipping (alongside male gods) balance of nature, earth. Christianity IS a patriarchal religion in which women have had very little worth.

Christianity stopped female healers, herbalists, midwives. They were witches and they were tortured and burnt.

If there is some sliding scale of patriarchy, Christianity is much more patriarchal than the uk religions/spirituality before.

For me, Christianity is patriarchal

I do not believe women were considered dirty before christianity. Women and fertility were worshipped.

Christianity came along with the Romans, maybe a few hundred years later, but it came with the roman catholic church all the same. The christian calendar took over the pagan calendar.

I understand you have looked into it, we can agree to disagree.

Youve touched a nerve because you are backtracking though while claiming you are not. You initially said:

BlessedKali · Yesterday 22:12
13 moons a year though, women have 13 periods (generally). 13 is the unlucky number.... Or so patriarchy tells us of course....

Onnabugeisha · Yesterday 22:18
Not patriarchy, but Christianity. 13 was a lucky number to the Celts & the Scandanavian polytheistic cultures. To the Christian missionaries it was the number preferred by devil worshippers.

BlessedKali · Yesterday 22:43
Christianity = patriarchy, no?

Onnabugeisha · Yesterday 22:58
No, Christianity doesn’t equal patriarchy.
When/where 13 was/is a lucky number, there is still patriarchy.

BlessedKali · Yesterday 23:05
Christianity took over from the pagan, female worshipping religions. It was male dominated. It was a patriarchal domination. Women went from sacred to dirty.

Onnabugeisha · Yesterday 23:10
Lol. No it didn’t. It replaced earlier male dominated religions.
Our various pagan European religions at the time of conversion were not female worshipping but polytheistic with goddesses ruled by gods- patriarchy even applied to goddesses.

BlessedKali · Yesterday 23:15
The pagan religions were definitely less patriarchal than christianity, polytheistic being god and goddess woship, no? When you live with nature and worship nature you see that it is a divine balance. I am not suggesting they were 'matriarchal' but that christianity was a patriarchal takeover. Are you trying to tell me that christianity is not patriarchal?

Onnabugeisha · Yesterday 23:24
No, I’m trying to tell you that patriarchy predates Christianity and is completely separate from Christianity. That your example of the number 13 being unlucky is due to “patriarchy” is completely wrong because when and where it was/is lucky, there is/was still patriarchy. And often a more patriarchal religion and society than what was in the Christian religion.

Greeks- 13 is lucky….more patriarchal than Christianity
Hindus- 13 is lucky…more patriarchal than Christianity
Jewish- 13 is lucky…more patriarchal than Christianity

And it’s romantic nonsense that if you “live with nature and worship nature you see that it is a divine balance” as most ancient religions are based on nature but still had gods supreme over goddesses.

Then more arguing, and now you are agreeing with me…as you’ve just said

BlessedKali · Today 00:20
I do think that 13 was considered an auspicious/lucky number in pagan religions, and I do think that Christianity made it out to be unlucky/bad, as Christianity did with many of the pagan traditions as part of it's takeover.

So, as I corrected you, you do agree it was Christianity not patriarchy.

The rest is splitting hairs, I think you saying women went from sacred to dirty and the pagan religions were female worshipping implied patriarchy free/matriarchal societies, because you said Christianity was a male dominated, patriarchal dominated take over. Youre saying I’m misrepresenting you. Fine. I wouldn’t have worded things that way if I thought one patriarchal religion is replacing another one myself, but you did.

The fact is women were still dirty preChristianity, and it was still fully pagan patriarchal religion and society. And you’re still ignoring that the Romans came for centuries before Christianity arrived and that much of the societal changes of a more patriarchal nature were due to Roman colonisation not Christianity.

Let us argue no more. Merry Solstice, happy birthday to The Sun, without which, none of us would be here bickering with strangers on the internet! x

Im not really sure why you are hell bent on arguing with me, this has obviously touched a nerve, maybe you are Christian? I feel no need to spend an evening defending myself, and it is derailing a interesting thread. But it does bother me when you keep misrepresenting me, and inventing things I have said...

I do not agree with you that pagan religions of our land were patriarchal, I have not said that, you have invented that and are making me out to look like an idiot by making it appear I am backtracking.

I do think that 13 was considered an auspicious/lucky number in pagan religions, and I do think that Christianity made it out to be unlucky/bad, as Christianity did with many of the pagan traditions as part of it's takeover.

I do see the Roman Catholic Church as strongly patriarchal.

You are not going to beat me into thinking differently

I see you have (and I quote you directly here) '' looked at our folklore'' - do you feel you have enough authority to be the one to hold what is the truth on this matter? Do you really want to try to belittle me and beat me with a stick with your superior knowlege? What if you are wrong?

That’s a lovely memory and birth story. It’s something you will remember twenty years from now. I do for my DC.

Sorry, meant Luna Clara

And Happy Birthday to little Clara Luna

I may disagree vehemently with you on some topics @Onnabugeisha , but not this one!
Happy Solstice

... Happy Solstice, and Merry Yule!
My daughter was born a year ago today, on a full moon, which shone through the window skylight in our roundhouse, down upon us. As I waddled with her in my arms, bloody with the umbillical cord, I stopped and looked upwards and smiled at the moon! Her name is Luna Clara - clear moon, and may she always know how sacred her body is 🌙🌕🌞

There is an awful lot of garbage "scholarship" about paganism that emerged in the late 19th century and continued to be passed around through the 20th century.

Couldnt agree more.

No one knows for sure why Christianity considered 13 unlucky, the main theiry is because Judas was the 13th person at the Last Supper, which has nothing to do with opposing paganism.

Norse mythology, for what it's worth, also considered 13 to be unlucky.

Different cultures have all kinds of reasons to consider some numbers lucky and others not. But probably, no numbers are actually lucky. Which is maybe something to keep in mind when trying to argue that seeing 13 as unlucky somehow correlates to Christianity being bad.

There is an awful lot of garbage "scholarship" about paganism that emerged in the late 19th century and continued to be passed around through the 20th century. You still see it in memes on the internet today from time to time.