Reconstructionism within Paganism

As a reconstructionist pagan (‘recon’ for short), I feel strongly that if we want to worship ancient deities, then it’s important to do it as accurately as possible using historical sources. I understand though, that not everyone feels this way. And it’s true that there’s a fine line between obsessive reconstruction and a happy-go-lucky careless approach. It’s also important to appreciate that while relying on academic and historical sources may seem a foolproof approach, these sources change all the time.

For example, fifty years ago Margaret Murray’s works were (mostly) accepted without question. Nowadays they aren’t. It’s important to bear this in mind because one of my main criticisms of some recons is their ‘we know best’ attitude or worse, ‘we’re the only ones who know the truth.’ And of course this can lead to complacency, if not downright pig-headedness.

The problem with many religious beliefs of course is that their adherents don’t like change all that much. Certainly they rarely welcome it. It’s one thing to dress up to reconstruct Civil War battles and then discover that maybe archaeology has proved that some aspect of your dress or weaponry is not quite what you had been led to believe. It’s quite another to discover that everything you have built your beliefs on has altered.

And it can happen. Anyone who’s ever studied history knows that it’s extremely fluid. One theory gives way to another. For example, Plutarch wrote that at the Oracle at Delphi the priestess would enter a small chamber in the temple of Apollo and inhale sweet-smelling vapours before entering a trance.. Many other ancient texts also mention these vapours but at the turn of the 20th century, French scholars dismissed these accounts. It was not until recently that scholars have come to support the ancient views. Geological and chemical analyses reveal that the priestess may have inhaled naturally occurring light hydrocarbon gases from bituminous limestone as part of the ceremony.

Actually, there’s a lot to be said for reconstructing things. Apart from anything else, it encourages us to look at ancient history. It also encourages the feeling that the system you are using is already ‘tried and tested’ – which is true, but only up to a point. And there’s always the danger that you can get too absorbed, too complacent, becoming convinced that your way is the only way.

A good thing about reconstructionism however is that the historical point of view should at least allow you to see how people in ancient times really viewed their deities. What did they ask them for? What did they believe they were capable of?

Another thing that can throw a spanner in our attempts to reconstruct the past is that the past was never static. Migration meant that deities could ‘take-over’ other deities, so for example an Asia Minor deity’s character could totally change by the time he/she reached mainland Greece. A few centuries later, with the Roman conquest of Greece, Greek deities were assimilated yet again, this time into the Roman Pantheon.

As the Roman Empire spread it assimilated still more deities, reshaping and sometimes renaming them, adding and subtracting from their traditional attributes and iconography. The passage of so much time makes it inevitable that a great deal has been lost, and reconstructionist pagans often feel they have a ‘duty’ to try and recover it.

A good example is Hekate. Nowadays often viewed as a crone-like ‘dark’ goddess with a garden full of poisonous plants, she seems particularly popular with Pagans who fancy a spot of hexing. Yet originally Hekate was associated with childbirth and the wilderness, particularly respected by Zeus even though she never became one of the twelve Olympian deities. The subversion of her reputation began back in antiquity, it’s true. So for recons the problem is – how far back must we go to find the truth?

Of course, plenty of people disagree with this point of view. ‘What does it matter,’ they ask, ‘as long as it works for us?’ And of course, they have a point. Most recons accept there is a place for personal gnosis, (and even divine revelation!) especially for filling in the gaps in historical knowledge. What you cannot do, however, is completely ignore the academic framework and create an eclectic patchwork. And to be honest, there’s no need for this: if you really cannot accept a certain aspect of the deity you work with, it’s better to try and find another, more congenial one. Certainly within Paganism, there’s always plenty of choice!

About the Author

Marie Collins has a degree in Classical Studies and works in the Civil Service. She is a Reconstructionist Pagan, focusing on the Ancient Classical and Egyptian deities.