Talk:Germanic paganism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 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

[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? QuartierLatin1968 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. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)