Talk:Anglo-Saxon polytheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've created this page for the advancement of Anglo-Saxon religious information. I am hoping that we can later merge it with Anglo-Saxon_mythology as a more definitive exposition of the subject.

Feel free to contribute to the article. I am not finished with the adding of information, and I'm sure there is much work ahead to make it truly complete. It will grow in time.

Yogensha 02:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

As for "Angles, Saxons, Jutes", there is no information about the religion of these tribes, even if they may be associated with the Anglo-Saxons prior to the invasion of England. Pre-5th century information goes on Germanic paganism. Only after their coming to England may we treat "Anglo-Saxon paganism" as a perceptible subset of Germanic paganism. Even then sources are extremely sparse, and most of this article would be more at home at "Germanic paganism" in general. dab (ᛏ) 13:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Where the Anglo-Saxon deities are related to the Old Germanic and Old Norse in this article, Ostara is the Old Norse equivalent of Eostre. Proof in the majorly accepted connection between the two in the Old Teutonic root 'aew-s' by linguists, as well as the similarities of importance between the deities themelves.

[edit] Sources

I would like to emphasize that this article is about the historical (pre 7th century) religion, not about Polytheistic reconstructionism, for which there is Theodism. Thus, we need to state how we know things for every statement (archaeology, Old English texts etc.) At present the article doesn't make clear at all how exactly the various gods, beliefs, symbols and practices are preserved; often enough, when you get to the bottom of these things, much turns out to be based on one or two dubious archaeological finds combined with etymological speculation. It is therefore important to come up front with the evidence. If a few cups were decorated with Swastikas in the Sutton Hoo burial, we can state that some Anglo-Saxon cups were decorated with Swastikas, not that the Swastika was an "ancient holy symbol related to lightning, the rising sun, Thor, Odin and lots of other things". dab (ᛏ) 10:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition, there are clearly some aspects of this which are references to Norse mythology, not Anglo-Saxon. As the article says, these are different. I am not expert enough to sort this out, but I hope people who are can. (As an example, "Mjollnir" is clearly not an Anglo-Saxon term.) —Felix the Cassowary 13:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct...Also when they say Freyja they are actually talking of Freo...and thus she should be named as such. They also fail to mention that some (but not all) think she is an aspect of Frige.

This is a very odd page. Wildly speculative from what appears to be a neo-pagan viewpoint. Not surprised it is 'disputed' However, I might note that according to Snorri, the Norse Baldur is the same as Baeldaeg (I'll get the citation), who is given as a son of Woden in Historia Brittonum, so ought to go in the table as an 'Anglo-Saxon equivalent. --193.82.117.132 08:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

true, but it's better than it used to be. I removed some unsourced material that had been tagged for too long already. You are most welcome to further improve the article. dab (ᛏ) 09:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to contribute my Anglo-Saxonist point of view here, it seems to me that it will be fundamentally impossible to develop this article without resorting to Original Research. As others have noted, there are simply no original Anglo-Saxon sources on pre-Christian English religion or spirituality. Consequently, there are no credible works of scholarship on this non-existent area of knowledge. The closest one can come is speculation on trace pagan cultural elements in the poetry of the era, which is to say, almost exclusively, Beowulf. Any and all research on the topic can only be described as reconstructionist both in motivation and objective. The cited topic is quite simply not a credible basis for a Wikipedia article. --Yst 14:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

you seem to be confusing "original research" with "research" tout court: there are obviously almost no primary accounts, but there is a great body of scholarly literature. Our job here is simply to refer to that. dab (ᛏ) 14:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean precisely what I say. Reference to existing research would be possible if there were indeed any credible research on this topic, but due to the absolute and total absence of first hand sources of information on, or even sustantial and credible attestation of, pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon worship, and due to the absolute and total absence of genuinely credible second hand sources, there's simply no such thing. No researchers worthy of citation (i.e., Neopagan web zines do not count) study Anglo-Saxon paganism per se. Certainly, there are those who study potentially pagan themes in Anglo-Saxon poetry and write scholarly work on the topic. There are those who study English place-name etymology and infer possible (though generally unprovable) pagan etymologies for a number of them. But Anglo-Saxon polytheism, as a subject, is itself not a subject of study or scholarly inquiry for the simple reason that the minute available substantiating evidence is entirely too scant to justify generalised inquiry. This being the case, any work done here will necessarily be original research, for lack of pre-existing research in this field. One cannot cite what does not exist. --Yst 05:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

that's, like, your opinion. Chaney (1970) in the reference I added sees things a little differently, and I will add some references to that debate in particular. This is not about webzines, and we are certainly allied in removing hearsay neopaganism cruft. AS polytheism is a matter of scholarly reconstruction, yes. What is your point? Are you arguing we should delete our Proto-Germanic article as well? And Proto-Indo-European language? "nothing to see here, no primary sources, the domain of webzines"? Anglo-Saxon polytheism, as a subject, is itself very much a subject of study or scholarly inquiry, admittedly mainly based on the study of its transition to Christianity. Far indeed from "lack of pre-existent research in this field" (hello?) there is a large body of scholarly literature on the topic (not webzines), so I really don't see why we are discussing this. dab (ᛏ) 08:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

note that I am not defending the present state of the article: it does need a lot of cleanup (please help). I am defending its raison d'etre which you seem to be calling into question. dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A few notes in response to Yst:

quote: "Reference to existing research would be possible if there were indeed any credible research on this topic," end quote

Some examples that you are missing:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ASE

Frank Stenton, "Anglo-Saxon England", 3rd edition (1971)

J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, "Early Germanic Kinship in England and on the Continent" (1971)

William A. Chaney, "The Cult of Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England: The Transition from Paganism to Christianity" (1970)

Henry Mayr-Harting, "The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England" (1972)

Those are five of my personal favourites. Want more? Okay, here is a lovely compendium of sources, many of which would be relevant:

http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/research/rawl/keynesbib/

quote: "but due to the absolute and total absence of first hand sources of information on, or even sustantial and credible attestation of, pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon worship, and due to the absolute and total absence of genuinely credible second hand sources, there's simply no such thing." end quote

First hand sources, I agree, at present are not known to us. Your second point bothers me, though. Attestation by second-hand sources is available. Nennius and Bede come readily to mind. Bede was a bit more forthcoming, but the writings of both of those men are quite valuable in being able to use them to draw inferred information since they apparently felt it worth their time to make various comments about paganism. Bede is far more credible, but I would tentatively agree that neither would be considered entirely infalliable.

Sorting out the useful from the hearsay in figuring out the details of ancient pagan religious ideas is a very difficult puzzle, incorporating the work of more than a dozen disciplines in the case of the European variants of such. This is not new. The sources we possess will have to suffice until a handy heathen or druidic 'bible' pops out of a convienient bog. The matter is hardly black-and-white, and is certainly worthy of study.

The absence of specialists in 'Anglo-Saxon polytheism' is not surprising; we do not have equivalents for any form of Germanic or Celtic polytheism in terms of specialised academic disciplines either, and both of those areas of study have far more resources on which they may draw. The reasons for this are hardly able to be reduced to a lack of relevant sources.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Horses.

Have a look at Westbury White Horse and Uffington White Horse and you will see why they have no connection to the subject of "Anglo-Saxon polytheism". As the Uffington Horse has been dated to the Bronze Age and the Westbury Horse is not known to have existed before the 18th century, any association with the Anglo-Saxons is speculative, to put it politely. The reference to them in this page is entirely erroneous and should be removed. Hikarakuyou 08:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)