Talk:Germanic paganism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Mythology Portal

This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Religion Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

1 Origins of Germanic paganism
2 Heathen redirect
3 ToC
4 Consensus on scope of entry
5 claims of "paganism" derogatory
6 tiwaz
7 Germanic Folklore Redirect
8 Scope
9 Paganism in the Eastern Alps
10 Germanic Polytheism
11 The Google Book argument
12 Is this about one religion or several mostly-related religions?
13 Castum

[edit] Origins of Germanic paganism

Quote from the article: "Ultimately deriving from Indo-European religion, Germanic paganism formed during the 1st millennium BC..."

As far as I know, neither assertion has enough evidence to support wording that statement as it is in the article.

The theory of an 'Indo-European' mother tongue for most European languages is still a theory, even if it does have a sizable amount of supporting evidence. The relevance of that linguistic theory to the origins of European paganry, or even the term itself borrowed from linguistics for this related (though different) purpose is useful but not particularly scientific.

I am also very curious about the arbitrary time period of the '1st millenium BC'. Is this an estimate? An educated guess? Most theories I have read vary widely in making that sort of assertion, and they never say it with any kind of authority or finality, since that is not really possible at the present time. P.MacUidhir 05:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

the term "Germanic" itself is coupled to linguistics; the religion of course evolved fluidly over time, and there is no particular event that can be identified as the beginning of "Germanic faith", even if we had all information available. But the origin of "Germanic" paganism need be in Proto-Germanic times. Proto-Germanic cannot be dated exactly, but it certainly falls within the 1st millennium BC. Earlier forms of paganism would qualify as "pre-Germanic". I don't know of any objections to classifying the Nordic Bronze Age as pre-Germanic, but of course there are a lot of unknown factors; Proto-Germanic worship of "Wodinaz" may of course in principle reach back into the 2nd millennium, only that it would then be pre-Proto-Germanic worship of "Watinos". Our terminology an classification will always be arbitrary to some extent. It could be argued that it is not permissible to treat Viking Age paganism, Migration Age paganism, and the religion described by Tacitus under a single title, or to treat West Germanic and North Germanic gods as identical, as is done on Odin etc. It does make sense, still, to bundle them under the (linguistic!) term "Germanic". We can certainly rephrase the statement if it is somehow misleading, but in its essence I think it is unproblematic and well supported. As for "Indo-European is just a theory", I would really like to see a credible linguistic reference disputing that. The genetic relationship of the Indo-European languages is extremely well established; it would indeed be difficult to find another tenet in historical linguistics that is known with similar certainty. The historical details are of course open to dispute, but that is hardly the issue here. dab (ᛏ) 06:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

When will people stop using the lay definition of theory for science usage? Learn to use a dictionary!

[edit] Heathen redirect

Following the principle of least astonishment, I was pretty confused when heathen redirected here. I was expecting an article discussing the Christian view that heathens and pagans are anyone who don't believe in either Christianity or monotheism. Is there a page about that? If so, I think "heathen" should like there, not here, or at least have a disambig note at the top of this page linking to it. --zandperl 15:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

um, yes, heathen was redirecting to paganism until a few hours ago. I've changed it back. dab (ᛏ) 16:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ToC

I disagree with the changes to the ToC structure. The Edda is also a "primary source", but it appears in the Viking Age section. The "Tacitus" stage is also a "stage of evolution", we don't need that as a super-section of migration period, viking age and middle ages. We can change the h2 header from "Tacitus" to "Pre-Migration Period" (meaning, say, 100 BC to AD 300), anticipating additions relating to archaeology; at the moment the section is still all about Tacitus. dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on scope of entry

What is the consensus on the scope of this entry? If it is to deal solely with the pre-Christian religion(s) of the Germanics, then we need to agree on a policy for the repeated insertion of links to modern religious movements. Theodism continually keeps reappearing in this entry, yet it is no more relevant than Forn Sed, Ásatrú or Odinism. I think we should just insert a link to Germanic_Neopaganism with the proper context and then not link to *any* specific modern religious movements. Opinions? -- HroptR 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more. :) I think I even reverted a few of those edits you are talking about here, if memory serves me correctly. Distinguishing between older heathenry and modern reconstructionist attempts is, to my POV, quite important. 800-1000 years between the two is a long time, despite arguments for remnants of it lasting in folklore and customs of the various NorthEuro. peoples.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] claims of "paganism" derogatory

says who? This is like Christians going around, claiming that it is derogatory to characterize their religion as "religion" (when it is rather "The Truth"). "Paganism" is the neutral, accurate term to group very heterogeneous traditions for which there would otherwise be no term. "Heathen" is an exact synonym of "Pagan", being a loan translation. Either both are derogatory, or neither. Descriptions like "Sidhr", "Sidu", "ethos" are idiosyncratic, or reconstructions of what the term would have been in the Iron Age. An alternative to "paganism" would arguably be Germanic polytheism, so it that makes people happy, it can be the title (like Celtic polytheism). But "paganism" in general can be either polytheistic or animistic, the distinctions blurring, and "polytheism" focusses too much on the pantheon, which is really only one aspect of the whole thing. dab (ᛏ) 17:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

quote Wiki"Paganism": "Often, the term has pejorative connotations, comparable to infidel and Kafir in Islam."unquote, which goes for "heathen" as well. If I would call anyone in Sweden today, clinging to Asatro or not, a hedning(heathen), she would certainly take offence. I am not a native English speaker, so I cannot argue for the subtle nuances... The best, Kurtan.

Prescriptive versus descriptive use of a term. This is going to be fun... <staying out of it for now, though, am I>

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Amongst the actual modern practitioners, it is thought to be derogatory by my guess by about 50% of the adherents. Since no one is living who can claim lineage to the historical pre-christian Germanic religion, it seems a rather moot point. Like it or not, this is the nomenclature that history has dictated be used by academia. I don't find it pejorative, just inaccurate in many instances. I had the misfortune of listening to a lecture recently were the speaker referred to atheists and adherents of indigenous religions like shinto as neo-pagan. Neo-paganism has come to encompass many "alternate lifestyles" and social & political causes which have nothing to do with religion, so the eschewing of the term is perceived as a reactionary necessity by many. I am intrigued by the compelling reasoning which demands imposing definitions on religious groups on Wikipedia however. It is not just "pagans" who resent well meaning, but terminologically anally fixated editors who come along and re-classify them into what they perceive to be an inaccurate category out of what seems to be sheer maliciousness at times. In the instance of this specific entry, however, I don't see what the issue is. The only thing I think would be more accurate than "Germanic paganism" is "Germanic indigenous folk religion", which is a bit unwieldly.--HroptR 00:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The association with Wicca and other New Age religions is really what lead to the eschewing in the English language by Germanic neopagans. It's in an attempt by Germanic neopagans to differentiate themselves from the Wiccan, new age and often hermetically-influenced "neopagan" crowd.

Due to this, the term is sometimes considered derogatory by practitioners. The reason for the wish for differentiation is due to the distinctly reconstructive nature of the religion, which lead to the advent of the Heathen term over pagan or Odinist -- The latter of which has been all but erased outside of heavily monotheistic-influenced prison and "white power" groups.

So, basically, although you'll find those that refer to themselves as "pagans," I find that, like myself, many English-speaking Germanic neopagans prefer the term "Heathen" officially due to the specific connotations of the term and the lack of association with new age "me-isms." :bloodofox: 03:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Polytheistic reconstructionism, no point in having this discussion in two places. dab (ᛏ) 20:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tiwaz

the article on Teiwaz needs a load of work, or rapid deletion. GraemeLeggett 15:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunno if I'm putting this in the right spot (new to Wikipedia).

The article needs cleanup - there are a number of bits of awkward grammar in the article. Here's an example:

"lthough perhaps singularly most responsible for the destruction of pagan sites, purported massacres such as the Bloody Trial of Verden and the subsequent dismantling of ancient tribal ruling systems, the Frankish emperor Charlemagne is said to have made a substantial collection of Germanic pre-Christian writings, which was deliberately destroyed after his death."

good catch -- it has been redirected to Tyr. re the syntax, it is a bit clumsz alright, but the content is alright, feel free to fix it! dab (ᛏ) 16:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germanic Folklore Redirect

Germanic Folklore encompasses a lot more than just the pre-Christian religion. (In fact, unlike the long dead pre-Christian religion, it has been very much alive onto this day.) There should be no redirect as the terms are not interchangeable. I have created a new, albeit snub, entry for such. - ThorHT

[edit] Scope

I don't really know what the scholarly feeling is, since Germanic polytheism's not my scene, but it seems to me that a lot of the Gaulish epigraphic and iconographic material from the Roman province of Germania Inferior should be considered to represent Germanic pagan material. At any rate, names like Nehalennia and Aufaniae and Vacallinehae are hardly Gaulish. (By contrast, Germania Superior abounds in Gaulish theonyms.) What is the current feeling in the literature about this kind of evidence from Germania Inferior? Quartier Latin1968 23:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paganism in the Eastern Alps

I've noticed that Paganism in the Eastern Alps is in Category:Germanic paganism and listed under Germanic paganism in the list of pagan religions at Paganism, but is not mentioned in this article. If Eastern Alps paganism is a true subtype of Germanic paganism, listing Germanic paganism should cover it; none of the other religions listed have subcategories, so having just that one seems really odd. The problem is that if you follow the link to Germanic paganism, you'll never find out about paganism in the Eastern Alps because it's not linked from here. On the other hand, we could link directly to Paganism in the Eastern Alps from Paganism and just take it out from under Germanic paganism to put it in line with the rest of the list. I have zero expertise in this area, so I hope somebody here can help. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been now linked. The page has been renamed Paganism in the Alpine region and categorized as Southern Germanic.Goldenrowley 20:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Germanic Polytheism

Shouldn't this page be entitled Germanic polytheism, just as many other articles such as Anglo-Saxon polytheism, Hellenic polytheism and Celtic polytheism? It seems more precise to me. :bloodofox: 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I view "Paganism" is a more striking word than the "Polytheism". Tahister 11:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

More striking, sure, but more precise? I've since moved Norse paganism to Norse polytheism. If anyone has any logical objects here, please let it be known. If not, I will soon request to have it moved. :bloodofox: 07:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now moved the article from Germanic paganism to Germanic polytheism. :bloodofox: 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

With all the related page article renames and mergers, the "see also" buttons were not working very well. Anyway, I checked a lot of the "see also links" and pared those that were redirects, not really articles. Goldenrowley 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't object strongly, but I note in passing that labelling these traditional/ethnic religions as "polytheism" betrays a monotheist outlook. For monotheists, obviously God is at the center of the concept of "religion", and a monotheist will duly categorize systems "by number of gods". From the point of view of these "polytheisms", gods are simply an item among others, and their focus will lie on ritualism, non-theistic spirituality and tradition at least as much as on the worship of actual gods. Thus "paganism" is the more inclusive term, while "polytheism" betrays the monotheist's obsession with 'counting gods'. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also all for going back to paganism. If we can't have heathens then surely we can at least have pagans. Haukur 14:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Google Books hit counts:

6 on "Norse polytheism".
34 on "Norse heathenism"
183 on "Norse paganism"

4 on "Germanic polytheism"
85 on "Germanic heathenism"
352 on "Germanic paganism"

Germanic paganism beats out Germanic polytheism by two orders of magnitude. Anyone object to a move back? Haukur 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved. Haukur 21:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak disagree. One should have checked how many of those hits are from Neopagan pages. I'm not sure whether historians would prefer the term Polytheism or Paganism here. -Zara1709 08:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are from books, not web pages. Not that there aren't neo-pagan books, of course. Haukur 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Germanic paganism — news, books, scholar

Find sources: Germanic polytheism — news, books, scholar

google scholar yields 74:2 hits in favour of "paganism". You use "paganism" for the entire culture/ethos, while "polytheism" concerns only the relatively marginal aspect of blot. dab (𒁳) 12:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Haukur's move back to the original name. See also Talk:Norse paganism#Norse polytheism or Norse paganism --Philip Baird Shearer 11:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Paganism preponderates in the literature over polytheism. At least, in all the books I have read I have never come across a pre-Christian Germanic or Slavic religion referred to as anything other than paganism. Polytheistic paganism, to be sure, but paganism. Srnec 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Google Book argument

The Google Book argument would give high points to "Norse religion"

2491 "Germanic religion"
 646 "Norse religion"
 471 "Germanic paganism"
 269 "Norse paganism"
  16 "Germanic polytheism"
   9 "Norse polytheism"

It was clear that the term "Germanic religion" included other religions, like Protestantism, Christianity and whatever. The best argument for the term "Norse religion" is that it is unequivocal in its meaning, both in geographic origin and in time. The term "Germanic" is more timeless and could relate to religious beliefs in the 17th century as well as any other epoch. I suggest that one rename this entry "Norse religion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throttleryn (talk • contribs) 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this about one religion or several mostly-related religions?

I reflexively chnged the first line, but we ought to reach consensus one way or another. Jacob Haller 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

that's a rather pointless question. paganism and religion should make clear why. religions are not countable unless they have a clear structure (a church). It is flawed thinking to try and apply notions taken from dogmatic religions to non-docmatic ones. For this reason I would avoid talking about "Germanic religions". Use "Germanic religion" or "Germanic paganism" not as singular but as a collective noun. dab (𒁳) 23:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's partly stylistic.

But there are real issues involved. (1) To describe one religion is to assume and assert some kind of uniformity and exclusivity. To describe multiple religions is to recognize that there was not that much uniformity and there was not always exclusivity. (2) For all the problems with using Jordanes, his Getica, in the united Goths part 24, appears to describe one pagan Germanic religion persecuting another, apparently pagan, apparently Germanic religion. Jacob Haller 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

in paganism, religion is inseparable from ethos (sidhr) and from tribal (ethnic) unity. Worship is pretty much organized by household, and in the Germanic case by tribe with the king acting as the "pater familias" of the "tribal household". Your reference of Jordanes I imagine is to the legendary origin of the Huns,

"Filimer, king of the Goths [...] found among his people certain witches, whom he called in his native tongue Haliurunnae. Suspecting these women, he expelled them from the midst of his race and compelled them to wander in solitary exile afar from his army. There the unclean spirits, who beheld them as they wandered through the wilderness, bestowed their embraces upon them and begat this savage race, which dwelt at first in the swamps, a stunted, foul and puny tribe, scarcely human, and having no language save one which bore but slight resemblance to human speech."

(incidentially, via William Morris the literary origin of Tolkien's Orcs) this may be material for Witchhunt#Antiquity, and perhaps for seid. dab (𒁳) 07:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castum

The reference to Castum should be corrected: I do not think the wood was named Castum, castum is a form of the Latin adjective castas. It means pure or chaste according to Wiktionary. However I hesitate to fix the text w/o finding a Latin expert 1st.Goldenrowley (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)