My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ancient "Freemasonry"?

MasonomroM

Registered User
Investiture-of-King-Zimri-Lim.jpg


"In the depiction of the culminating rites shown in [this figure], the king, accompanied by a guardian with arms raised in the traditional attitude of prayer and worship, comes into the most sacred space of the palace where he would have received royal insignia from the hand of a representation of Ishtar, in the presence of other gods and divinized ancestors. The king’s hand is extended to receive these insignia while his arm is raised in a gesture of oath making. As also seen in biblical practice, the solemn nature of the oath was confirmed by touching the throat. Note that the Mesopotamian royal insignia of the rod and the coil as they were depicted here in 1800 bce, had a basic function of measurement similar to the square and compass in later times."

(See Bradshaw, J., [2015], Freemasonry and the Origins of Modern Temple Ordinances, The Interpreter, 15, 59-237).

I realize that it isn't popular in most modern-era masonic circles to suggest that masonry has some ancient antecedents, but wouldn't this be an example of one?

I personally don't think freemasonry is 100% ancient, but it seems to me that some of the symbols (square and compasses, for example) and other actions (penal oaths) are ancient.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Elexir

Registered User
Investiture-of-King-Zimri-Lim.jpg


"In the depiction of the culminating rites shown in [this figure], the king, accompanied by a guardian with arms raised in the traditional attitude of prayer and worship, comes into the most sacred space of the palace where he would have received royal insignia from the hand of a representation of Ishtar, in the presence of other gods and divinized ancestors. The king’s hand is extended to receive these insignia while his arm is raised in a gesture of oath making. As also seen in biblical practice, the solemn nature of the oath was confirmed by touching the throat. Note that the Mesopotamian royal insignia of the rod and the coil as they were depicted here in 1800 bce, had a basic function of measurement similar to the square and compass in later times."

(See Bradshaw, J., [2015], Freemasonry and the Origins of Modern Temple Ordinances, The Interpreter, 15, 59-237).

I realize that it isn't popular in most modern-era masonic circles to suggest that masonry has some ancient antecedents, but wouldn't this be an example of one?

I personally don't think masonry is 100% ancient, but it seems to me that some of the symbols (square and compasses, for example) and other actions (penal oaths) are ancient.

Thoughts?

I would say that masonic ritual has been inspired by many diffrent ideas and thoughts so its not just one line of traditions.
 

LK600

Premium Member
I realize that it isn't popular in most modern-era masonic circles to suggest that masonry has some ancient antecedents, but wouldn't this be an example of one?

Only in that our rituals were inspired / based on pre-existing historical rituals that were based on other historical rituals at least in part, popularity being a non issue.

I personally don't think freemasonry is 100% ancient, but it seems to me that some of the symbols (square and compasses, for example) and other actions (penal oaths) are ancient.

Of course in reference to the symbols. There is no data (that I am aware of) directly tying Freemasonry to ancient anything, other than our adoption of specific items. It also depends on where you draw a line as to what constitutes Freemasonry. The first Grand Lodge? 1717 (approx). The first speculative members? 1600's (give or take, and again, that I'm aware of). The age of some of our symbols and rituals? per-Solomon's Temple.
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
I would say that masonic ritual has been inspired by many diffrent ideas and thoughts so its not just one line of traditions.
Freemasonry started around 1717. Masonry started when man started building with rocks.
Of course in reference to the symbols. There is no data (that I am aware of) directly tying Freemasonry to ancient anything, other than our adoption of specific items.
I think it's a really good picture but I don't think it is any more Masonic than any other picture of four or five people standing next to each other. If anything, it's more Golden Dawnish than anything.
Agreed.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
If by "around 1717," you mean "well before 1717," then yes, that's when Freemasonry started.
LOL! I meant exactly what I wrote. No need to distort it to fit your paradigm. The role playing society now called "freemasonry" started around 1717. The word "freemason" didn't even get coined till after that date.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
My point exactly! Shoddy Scholarship. This author rewrites history every time he took liberty and rendered the terms "free_manson" and "free-mason" as "freemason".

Look at the original documents! The original documents show the terms "free_manson" or "free-mason", not "freemason". The compound word "freemason" didn't come together until after 1717!

Two questions should be raised...

1) Why were the terms written like this prior to 1717 by those either involved in stonecraft of those writing about those involved in stonecraft?
2) Why would any legitimate scholar take such liberty in rendering them differently than they were originally written?
 

jermy Bell

Registered User
The more I try to understand the history of freemasonry, the more I'm confused. .... everyone seems to be obsessed with 1717, but with nothing carved in stone ( forgive the pun) it has to go way back somewhere. But there are tons of questions and a lot I have that no one can answer. So we speculate what, who, when, and where. I would really like to believe that future generations will find the right.
 

texanmason

Registered User
John, if we want to throw around the term "shoddy scholarship," then you should remember that spelling was not always as standardized as it is now. The terms "free mason" , "free-mason" , and "freemason" are context-based, and more often than not, refer to men who are members of Freemasonry.

As an example, I would point you towards the name "Shakespeare," which did not standardize until the 1860s, but in every spelling, referred to the same individual. Did William Shakespeare not exist until the 1860s? See also: Sir Walter Raleigh, Thomas Dekker, etc.

Claiming that Freemasonry did not exist until 1717 because the spelling was not standardized until 1717 is simply not consistent with what we know about the Craft.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
John, if we want to throw around the term "shoddy scholarship," then you should remember that spelling was not always as standardized as it is now.
And while we're throwing around "shoulds", you should remember that the shoddy scholarship I referred to is changing the spelling of words that are reported rather than reporting what is actually written. To claim the word "freemason" was used in a document when it was clearly written as "Free Mason" or "free-mason" misleads and falsifies what is reported.
The terms "free mason" , "free-mason" , and "freemason" are context-based,...
Thank you! Yes! Absolutely! Context is everything... ...and within context, the first two terms were used to refer to stonecraft solely prior to 1717 - not our theatrical role-playing society. The last term was never used prior to around 1717 AND became exclusive to our organization of role-playing actors soon after it was created... around 1717!
...and more often than not, refer to men who are members of Freemasonry.
Yes, but only after about 1717.
As an example, I would point you towards the name "Shakespeare," which did not standardize until the 1860s, but in every spelling, referred to the same individual. Did William Shakespeare not exist until the 1860s? See also: Sir Walter Raleigh, Thomas Dekker, etc.
<snicker> Straw man argument...
Claiming that Freemasonry did not exist until 1717 because the spelling was not standardized until 1717 is simply not consistent with what we know about the Craft.
It is based upon what Freemasonry has done since its beginning, circa 1717, versus what stonecraft did before, during and after 1717; they are totally unrelated activities aside from the use of stonecraft lexicon, lore and symbols by Freemasons in their morality plays and organizational roleplaying. Spelling, within context, is merely an indicator.
 

texanmason

Registered User
It is based upon what Freemasonry has done since its beginning, circa 1717, versus what stonecraft did before, during and after 1717; they are totally unrelated activities aside from the use of stonecraft lexicon, lore and symbols by Freemasons in their morality plays and organizational roleplaying. Spelling, within context, is merely an indicator.

I'm sure Elias Ashmole got up to a lot of stonecrafting.
 

Elexir

Registered User
Most Masonic historians study the outer form: records, organizational structures and members

A few study the soul of Masonry: ritual, brotherhood, teachings. The soul of course may inhabit bodies (organizations) that differ greatly over the ages.

Hardly any study the spirit of Masonry. This spirit remains unchanged while rituals and brotherhoods come and go and organizational structures flash by.

Actully the spirit of freemasonry differs depending on ritual used.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Not much to add. The usual assumptions made by Freemasonic members that men joined these operative lodges to do speculative work is not a fantasy that I buy into. The evidence is simply not there, but tons of conjecture on the part of members is. More likely these men joined for the social and business connections since the entire group benefited by the synergy of these connections. The evidence points to this being the case.

As an aside, true speculative masonry would be an analogues equivalent of the operative form. That reality and practice has yet to come to fruition within the 1717 GL era Freemasonic system.
 

LK600

Premium Member
1646 is the date I am most comfortable pointing to (in relation to documentation). 1717 (disputed) is only the date of the 1st Grand lodge. IMO, if a person considers our current system as its beginning... then the date would be 1717. If a person considers speculative Masonry, the date is 1646. There are earlier dates with documents which suggest much earlier, but again, things tend to get very murky with leaps of faith. As always, just like everyone else here, Just my opinion.
 
Top