Fucking cool! :punk:
http://sciencenordic.com/entire-army-sacrificed-bog
QuoteAn entire army sacrificed in a bog
August 22, 2012 - 06:11
Archaeologists have found skeletal remains of an entire army in an ancient mass grave in Denmark. The bones confirm reports from written sources of shocking Teutonic massacres
A Danish bog has been harbouring a terrifying secret for thousands of years.
Archaeologists have spent all summer excavating a small sample of what has turned out to be a mass grave containing skeletal remains from more than 1,000 warriors, who were killed in battle some 2,000 years ago.
"We found a lot more human bones than we had expected," says Ejvind Hertz, curator at Skanderborg Museum.
The discovery of the many Iron Age bones has attracted international attention, partly because the body parts are macabre per se, but also because the bones are surprisingly well preserved. Furthermore, the find confirms a Roman source's description of the Teutons' atrocious war practices.
The site is located in the Alken Enge wetlands near Lake Mossø on the Jutland peninsula.
Bones reveal wounds from weapons
Some 2,000 years ago, the Alken warriors are thought to have been sacrificed to some gods, which we're not very familiar with today.
The bones ended up in the bog at a time when it wasn't a bog; rather, it was a small basin by Lake Mossø, created by a tongue of land jutting into the lake.
The archaeologists have so far only excavated an area of 80-90 square metres, although the site stretches over an area of 3,600 square metres.
Excavations in wetlands are very expensive, since water needs to be constantly pumped out. Also, the finds are so densely concentrated that it takes a long time to get through all the layers.
The area that has so far been excavated contained bone fragments from around 240 men aged between 13 and 45. The men's bones are marked by melee weapons such as swords and axes.
Meadow filled with dead warriors
The unexcavated basin in the bog stretches over a huge area covering almost 40 hectare and is believed to contain the remains of more than 1,000 warriors.
When asked how the archaeologists can tell that this many warriors are buried there, Hertz says: "We know that people who cut peat here in the 19th and 20th centuries found bone fragments. We've also made test excavations in the basin."
The archaeologists did not find complete skeletons, only skeletal parts. They can see that the bog contains many different individuals, since humans have, for instance, only one left thighbone.
Dead warriors were left to rot on the battlefield
The army beneath the bog may have been defeated and killed in a battlefield located far away from Alken Wetlands.
Hertz says that if this were the case, it must have been a massive logistical task for Iron Age people to transport the bones to the lake.
The researchers cannot say how this may have come about or where the battle took place. Many of the archaeological finds in the area stem from armies that came from afar.
But in principle, the battlefield may have been located right next to the sacrificial site. The sacrifice, however, occurred long after the battle.
"The bones have been sacrificed months or even years after the warriors were killed. We won't know until the bones have been carefully analysed," says the curator.
"At this early stage, we can see that the bones have bite marks on them, and parts of the joints have been gnawed off. So there's no doubt that predators have been in contact with the body parts."
Finds confirm tales of brutal warfare
The marks from the predators' bite indicate that the dead warriors were left to die and rot on the battlefield, without anyone bothering to bury or even remove the bodies.
This confirms parts of what a Roman source wrote about war practices among Northern Europeans in the period around the time of the birth of Christ.
One of the greatest historians of the Roman Empire, Tacitus (56 AD – 120 AD) described the aftermath of the Roman's famous defeat in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD.
"In the middle of the plain, bones lay either spread out or heaped, depending on whether they had fled or resisted. Next to the bones lay bits of spears and horse limbs, and there were also human heads nailed to trees. In the nearby groves were barbarian altars in which they had sacrificed tribunes and centurions of the first rank," Tacitus wrote in his Annals.
We also know from sources that when the Teutons won a battle, they killed off all the surviving enemies, except for the few who managed to run back to their home and tell of their defeat.
Very few weapons found in the grave
The archaeologists cannot determine the nationality of the slain warriors because they have found very few remains of weapons in the grave.
Among the numerous bone fragments, they have only found a few arrowheads, the remains of a shield and a very well preserved axe, complete with a shaft, which is very rare.
An invaluable source of info about Iron Age man
The bones are nevertheless invaluable: "This is the first time that something like this has been found in northern Europe," says Hertz.
The conditions for preservation in the Alken wetlands have been optimal, i.e. the atmosphere has been oxygen-free.
"The bones are completely fresh," he says. "Some DNA has been preserved, so we can get a good profile of what Iron Age man looked like. An anthropological analysis of the bones will provide us with a picture of their diet and their physical appearance."
The researchers are nearing the completion of the current excavation project. In the coming months, they will be analysing the many bones together with international experts,
The project, titled 'The army and post-war rituals in the Iron Age – warriors sacrificed in the bog at Alken Enge in Illerup Ådal' is a collaboration between archaeologists and geologists at Skanderborg Museum, Moesgård Museum and Aarhus University.
Advocating genocide now? :yeahright:
Cambyses really took a wrong turn on the way to the Siwa oasis.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2012, 04:02:06 AM
Fucking cool! :punk:
http://sciencenordic.com/entire-army-sacrificed-bog
QuoteAn entire army sacrificed in a bog
August 22, 2012 - 06:11
Archaeologists have found skeletal remains of an entire army in an ancient mass grave in Denmark. The bones confirm reports from written sources of shocking Teutonic massacres
A Danish bog has been harbouring a terrifying secret for thousands of years.
Archaeologists have spent all summer excavating a small sample of what has turned out to be a mass grave containing skeletal remains from more than 1,000 warriors, who were killed in battle some 2,000 years ago.
"We found a lot more human bones than we had expected," says Ejvind Hertz, curator at Skanderborg Museum.
The discovery of the many Iron Age bones has attracted international attention, partly because the body parts are macabre per se, but also because the bones are surprisingly well preserved. Furthermore, the find confirms a Roman source's description of the Teutons' atrocious war practices.
The site is located in the Alken Enge wetlands near Lake Mossø on the Jutland peninsula.
Bones reveal wounds from weapons
Some 2,000 years ago, the Alken warriors are thought to have been sacrificed to some gods, which we're not very familiar with today.
The bones ended up in the bog at a time when it wasn't a bog; rather, it was a small basin by Lake Mossø, created by a tongue of land jutting into the lake.
The archaeologists have so far only excavated an area of 80-90 square metres, although the site stretches over an area of 3,600 square metres.
Excavations in wetlands are very expensive, since water needs to be constantly pumped out. Also, the finds are so densely concentrated that it takes a long time to get through all the layers.
The area that has so far been excavated contained bone fragments from around 240 men aged between 13 and 45. The men's bones are marked by melee weapons such as swords and axes.
Meadow filled with dead warriors
The unexcavated basin in the bog stretches over a huge area covering almost 40 hectare and is believed to contain the remains of more than 1,000 warriors.
When asked how the archaeologists can tell that this many warriors are buried there, Hertz says: "We know that people who cut peat here in the 19th and 20th centuries found bone fragments. We've also made test excavations in the basin."
The archaeologists did not find complete skeletons, only skeletal parts. They can see that the bog contains many different individuals, since humans have, for instance, only one left thighbone.
Dead warriors were left to rot on the battlefield
The army beneath the bog may have been defeated and killed in a battlefield located far away from Alken Wetlands.
Hertz says that if this were the case, it must have been a massive logistical task for Iron Age people to transport the bones to the lake.
The researchers cannot say how this may have come about or where the battle took place. Many of the archaeological finds in the area stem from armies that came from afar.
But in principle, the battlefield may have been located right next to the sacrificial site. The sacrifice, however, occurred long after the battle.
"The bones have been sacrificed months or even years after the warriors were killed. We won't know until the bones have been carefully analysed," says the curator.
"At this early stage, we can see that the bones have bite marks on them, and parts of the joints have been gnawed off. So there's no doubt that predators have been in contact with the body parts."
Finds confirm tales of brutal warfare
The marks from the predators' bite indicate that the dead warriors were left to die and rot on the battlefield, without anyone bothering to bury or even remove the bodies.
This confirms parts of what a Roman source wrote about war practices among Northern Europeans in the period around the time of the birth of Christ.
One of the greatest historians of the Roman Empire, Tacitus (56 AD – 120 AD) described the aftermath of the Roman's famous defeat in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD.
"In the middle of the plain, bones lay either spread out or heaped, depending on whether they had fled or resisted. Next to the bones lay bits of spears and horse limbs, and there were also human heads nailed to trees. In the nearby groves were barbarian altars in which they had sacrificed tribunes and centurions of the first rank," Tacitus wrote in his Annals.
We also know from sources that when the Teutons won a battle, they killed off all the surviving enemies, except for the few who managed to run back to their home and tell of their defeat.
Very few weapons found in the grave
The archaeologists cannot determine the nationality of the slain warriors because they have found very few remains of weapons in the grave.
Among the numerous bone fragments, they have only found a few arrowheads, the remains of a shield and a very well preserved axe, complete with a shaft, which is very rare.
An invaluable source of info about Iron Age man
The bones are nevertheless invaluable: "This is the first time that something like this has been found in northern Europe," says Hertz.
The conditions for preservation in the Alken wetlands have been optimal, i.e. the atmosphere has been oxygen-free.
"The bones are completely fresh," he says. "Some DNA has been preserved, so we can get a good profile of what Iron Age man looked like. An anthropological analysis of the bones will provide us with a picture of their diet and their physical appearance."
The researchers are nearing the completion of the current excavation project. In the coming months, they will be analysing the many bones together with international experts,
The project, titled 'The army and post-war rituals in the Iron Age – warriors sacrificed in the bog at Alken Enge in Illerup Ådal' is a collaboration between archaeologists and geologists at Skanderborg Museum, Moesgård Museum and Aarhus University.
About 15 km from where I live :)
Just Germans being German.
This is probably how the Valhalla myth started. Odin needed the dead either as warriors for Ragnarök or to crucify them on oaks representing yggdrasil and having their blood feed the mímirs well granting odin wisdom.
It is pretty clear that germanic and norse traditions included human sacrifice of captives in that period.
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 06:59:36 AM
This is probably how the Valhalla myth started. Odin needed the dead either as warriors for Ragnarök or to crucify them on oaks representing yggdrasil and having their blood feed the mímirs well granting odin wisdom.
It is pretty clear that germanic and norse traditions included human sacrifice of captives in that period.
Oh, great, another Viking anti-religion rant coming. :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2012, 07:45:42 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 06:59:36 AM
This is probably how the Valhalla myth started. Odin needed the dead either as warriors for Ragnarök or to crucify them on oaks representing yggdrasil and having their blood feed the mímirs well granting odin wisdom.
It is pretty clear that germanic and norse traditions included human sacrifice of captives in that period.
Oh, great, another Viking anti-religion rant coming. :rolleyes:
Not to worry, given that Ásatrú doesn't have any (actual) adherents I find nothing objectionable in it.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/424534_10151371556800613_1986779414_n.jpg)
Edit: technically Odin promised to die in combat with Loki's child with a frost giant the wolf Fenris after which Odin's son Vidar will stomp the giants into the ground with his giant boots. But, that is just allegory.. the real meaning of ásatrú is the lack of frost giants = odin exists.
That supposed to be Odin? Why does he have both eyes?
Quote from: Syt on August 23, 2012, 08:14:08 AM
That supposed to be Odin? Why does he have both eyes?
This demotivator is better than the on with thor on it. :blush: Hugin and Munin in the background helps.
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 06:59:36 AM
This is probably how the Valhalla myth started. Odin needed the dead either as warriors for Ragnarök or to crucify them on oaks representing yggdrasil and having their blood feed the mímirs well granting odin wisdom.
It is pretty clear that germanic and norse traditions included human sacrifice of captives in that period.
It is a practical way to keep your enemies from fighting you again, and holding prisoners isn't very practical if you don't have urban areas or significant permanent political centers.
How cool would it be if these turned out to be Romans from Teutoburg Forest? That was almost exactly 2000 years ago.
So good for the low lethality of warfare theory, ah?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2012, 08:29:52 AM
How cool would it be if these turned out to be Romans from Teutoburg Forest? That was almost exactly 2000 years ago.
Only, that it's 400-500 km from there.I don't see Germanic tribes driving all those prisoners that far.
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 07:49:02 AM
Not to worry, given that Ásatrú doesn't have any (actual) adherents I find nothing objectionable in it.
:unsure: :hmm:
http://www.asatru.org/ (http://www.asatru.org/)
Quote from: merithyn on August 23, 2012, 08:33:55 AM
:unsure: :hmm:
http://www.asatru.org/ (http://www.asatru.org/)
He made it pretty clear he does not view the modern adherents as legitimate.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2012, 08:29:52 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 06:59:36 AM
This is probably how the Valhalla myth started. Odin needed the dead either as warriors for Ragnarök or to crucify them on oaks representing yggdrasil and having their blood feed the mímirs well granting odin wisdom.
It is pretty clear that germanic and norse traditions included human sacrifice of captives in that period.
It is a practical way to keep your enemies from fighting you again, and holding prisoners isn't very practical if you don't have urban areas or significant permanent political centers.
How cool would it be if these turned out to be Romans from Teutoburg Forest? That was almost exactly 2000 years ago.
The teuotobergerwald has been found and is hundreds of kilometers from that place.
Quote from: merithyn on August 23, 2012, 08:33:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 07:49:02 AM
Not to worry, given that Ásatrú doesn't have any (actual) adherents I find nothing objectionable in it.
:unsure: :hmm:
http://www.asatru.org/ (http://www.asatru.org/)
I actually know some of these people so, no meri, no.
I was sort of disappointed by the Teutoberg Forest. It was hyped as this huge thing but when I actually studied Roman History it looks like the Romans barely broke a sweat. Heck the real reason it seems they did not take Germany back was more because of Tiberius' paranoia than dispair over the mighty Proto-Franks.
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 08:36:32 AM
The teuotobergerwald has been found and is hundreds of kilometers from that place.
I realize that...presumably it would still be possible to move prisoners, or their bones? The Romans were fairly notorious, I can imagine sacrificing/executing a large group or just their bones would be more impactful for a tribal chief than the yahoos from the next village.
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 08:40:11 AM
I actually know some of these people so, no meri, no.
Please to esplain. How does knowing them make them not Asatru?
Besides, I thought of all of the neo-Pagan religions, the Asatru were the closest to the "real deal" because they had the Icelandic epics etc that pretty much spell out what was done, why, and by whom. Admittedly, "closer to the real deal" still may not be very close.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2012, 08:42:39 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 08:36:32 AM
The teuotobergerwald has been found and is hundreds of kilometers from that place.
I realize that...presumably it would still be possible to move prisoners, or their bones? The Romans were fairly notorious, I can imagine sacrificing/executing a large group or just their bones would be more impactful for a tribal chief than the yahoos from the next village.
There are no instances in the sagas of prisoners. Not prisoners being transported, but the concept of prisoners at all. All the impact you really needed to was to come home from a battle with lots and lots of arm rings.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F57374000%2Fjpg%2F_57374801_viking_silver_hoard_1.jpg&hash=a55c7aa9bbf5c09aa4a9df306698059e28f6cca3)
Quote from: Siege on August 23, 2012, 08:31:35 AM
So good for the low lethality of warfare theory, ah?
Yup. People were hard core back then.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2012, 08:48:51 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 23, 2012, 08:31:35 AM
So good for the low lethality of warfare theory, ah?
Yup. People were hard core back then.
Which is how slavery actually originated as an act of humanitarianism and mercy.
Quote from: merithyn on August 23, 2012, 08:44:52 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 08:40:11 AM
I actually know some of these people so, no meri, no.
Please to esplain. How does knowing them make them not Asatru?
Besides, I thought of all of the neo-Pagan religions, the Asatru were the closest to the "real deal" because they had the Icelandic epics etc that pretty much spell out what was done, why, and by whom. Admittedly, "closer to the real deal" still may not be very close.
The Sagas were all written in the 13th century, over 250 years after iceland converted in 1000 AD. The religious texts (Gylfagynning, Older and Younger Edda and Havamal) are poetic and not concerned with ritual at all.
The whole Ásatrú thing started as a protest against the mandatory tithe to the Lutheran Church we had in our tax code in the 1970s.
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 08:47:30 AM
There are no instances in the sagas of prisoners. Not prisoners being transported, but the concept of prisoners at all.
I don't know that this is correct...at least in the sense that a person wasn't moved from point A to point B as a prisoner prior to execution.
Maybe this evening I'll try to find examples.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2012, 08:56:20 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 08:47:30 AM
There are no instances in the sagas of prisoners. Not prisoners being transported, but the concept of prisoners at all.
I don't know that this is correct...at least in the sense that a person wasn't moved from point A to point B as a prisoner prior to execution.
Maybe this evening I'll try to find examples.
There were slaves being transported, the most important viking trade was in capturing, transporting and selling slavs as slaves (etymology ftw). But enemy warriors were killed at the first opportunity, both out of respect (give them their chance at valhalla) and out of common good sense (they were dangerous to keep around in a world without locks or cages).
Also, Timmay, pray tell what you find so "fucking cool" about human sacrifice on a large scale?
Here is something I don't understand. Why would ancient warriors ever surrender, if it was a certainty that they would be slaughtered/executed/sacrificed?
Quote from: Syt on August 23, 2012, 09:11:20 AM
Also, Timmay, pray tell what you find so "fucking cool" about human sacrifice on a large scale?
Other people aren't people to him.
Quote from: Syt on August 23, 2012, 09:11:20 AM
Also, Timmay, pray tell what you find so "fucking cool" about human sacrifice on a large scale?
The archaeological discovery is what's cool. You can't seriously believe I think massacres are cool.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2012, 09:13:12 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 23, 2012, 09:11:20 AM
Also, Timmay, pray tell what you find so "fucking cool" about human sacrifice on a large scale?
The archaeological discovery is what's cool. You can't seriously believe I think massacres are cool.
QuoteYup. People were hard core back then.
So people are soft now?
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2012, 09:11:42 AM
Here is something I don't understand. Why would ancient warriors ever surrender, if it was a certainty that they would be slaughtered/executed/sacrificed?
Cowardice and the hope of pardon. Killing prisoners is timeconsuming.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2012, 09:13:12 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 23, 2012, 09:11:20 AM
Also, Timmay, pray tell what you find so "fucking cool" about human sacrifice on a large scale?
I think massacres are cool.
you monster!
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2012, 09:11:42 AM
Here is something I don't understand. Why would ancient warriors ever surrender, if it was a certainty that they would be slaughtered/executed/sacrificed?
My thinking is simple exhaustion, hunger and thirst played parts.
Quote from: Syt on August 23, 2012, 09:14:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2012, 09:13:12 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 23, 2012, 09:11:20 AM
Also, Timmay, pray tell what you find so "fucking cool" about human sacrifice on a large scale?
The archaeological discovery is what's cool. You can't seriously believe I think massacres are cool.
QuoteYup. People were hard core back then.
So people are soft now?
In comparison, yes. It's not a bad thing.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2012, 09:13:12 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 23, 2012, 09:11:20 AM
Also, Timmay, pray tell what you find so "fucking cool" about human sacrifice on a large scale?
The archaeological discovery is what's cool. You can't seriously believe I think massacres are cool.
You seem pretty excited by the prospect of it.
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 08:36:32 AM
The teuotobergerwald has been found and is hundreds of kilometers from that place.
Exactly - the attempt to link this find to Tacitus' account of that battle doesn't make a ton of sense. Apples and oranges.
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 08:40:11 AM
I actually know some of these people so, no meri, no.
What defines an actual Asatru?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2012, 09:13:12 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 23, 2012, 09:11:20 AM
Also, Timmay, pray tell what you find so "fucking cool" about human sacrifice on a large scale?
The archaeological discovery is what's cool. You can't seriously believe I think massacres are cool.
Yesterday you were big on wars of conquest.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 10:50:38 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 08:40:11 AM
I actually know some of these people so, no meri, no.
What defines an actual Asatru?
Etymology
Æsir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86sir) the pantheon of gods
trú (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith) the icelandic word for faith
the word actually just means belief in the gods.
So if someone calls themselves Asatru they are actual Asatru? Good, we are in agreement then.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 11:12:29 AM
So if someone calls themselves Asatru they are actual Asatru? Good, we are in agreement then.
Depends. Are there official guidelines?
I don't know of any such group that claims to have divinely inspired scripture if that's what you mean.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 11:12:29 AM
So if someone calls themselves Asatru they are actual Asatru? Good, we are in agreement then.
Yes, and mormons call themselves christian. The thing is you can call yourself whatever you want. I'm rich, popular and handsome, plus my penis is over two foot long. I just choose my own meanings of the words rich, popular, handsome and foot.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 10:50:38 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 08:40:11 AM
I actually know some of these people so, no meri, no.
What defines an actual Asatru?
Willingness to sacrifice an entire army in Denmark.
Quote from: Syt on August 23, 2012, 09:11:20 AM
Also, Timmay, pray tell what you find so "fucking cool" about human sacrifice on a large scale?
What, we can't revel in the achievements of others now? :huh:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 23, 2012, 11:14:58 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 11:12:29 AM
So if someone calls themselves Asatru they are actual Asatru? Good, we are in agreement then.
Depends. Are there official guidelines?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A1vam%C3%A1l
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 11:23:49 AM
Yes, and mormons call themselves christian. The thing is you can call yourself whatever you want. I'm rich, popular and handsome, plus my penis is over two foot long. I just choose my own meanings of the words rich, popular, handsome and foot.
But two is not up for debate? :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2012, 11:33:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 11:23:49 AM
Yes, and mormons call themselves christian. The thing is you can call yourself whatever you want. I'm rich, popular and handsome, plus my penis is over two foot long. I just choose my own meanings of the words rich, popular, handsome and foot.
But two is not up for debate? :lol:
when the meaning of "foot" is completely arbitrary then "two" no longer has any meaning.
The thing is Max, these are people who are trying to reconstruct a religion that differed dramatically across a wide area from a few poems recorded and partially preserved at the far periphery of the area where people had these beliefs and try understand them through the lens of religion as they understand it in the modern world. It would be like a group of Chinese Buddhists who decided to develop an idea of Christianity based on watching the movie The Exorcist and started calling themselves "Baptist Christians" based on what they they thought they gleaned from the film.
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 11:27:00 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 23, 2012, 11:14:58 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 11:12:29 AM
So if someone calls themselves Asatru they are actual Asatru? Good, we are in agreement then.
Depends. Are there official guidelines?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A1vam%C3%A1l
Yeah, that's what I was thinking of when I said based on actual writings. I don't know enough about it to say that the neo-Asatru movement follows it faithfully, but if that's their basis for their religion, I'd guess it would still be okay to call it Asatru. But I'm not as strict with my definition of what to call things as you seem to be.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 11:40:39 AM
The thing is Max, these are people who are trying to reconstruct a religion that differed dramatically across a wide area from a few poems recorded and partially preserved at the far periphery of the area where people had these beliefs and try understand them through the lens of religion as they understand it in the modern world. It would be like a group of Chinese Buddhists who decided to develop an idea of Christianity based on watching the movie The Exorcist and started calling themselves "Baptist Christians" based on what they they thought they gleaned from the film.
Actually, it would be more like those same Buddhists trying to recreate Christianity based on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I don't see anything wrong with them callilng themselves Christians anymore than I do with the Asatru folks calling themselves that.
Denmark needs to issue an official apology and provide reparations.
Quote from: merithyn on August 23, 2012, 11:45:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 11:40:39 AM
The thing is Max, these are people who are trying to reconstruct a religion that differed dramatically across a wide area from a few poems recorded and partially preserved at the far periphery of the area where people had these beliefs and try understand them through the lens of religion as they understand it in the modern world. It would be like a group of Chinese Buddhists who decided to develop an idea of Christianity based on watching the movie The Exorcist and started calling themselves "Baptist Christians" based on what they they thought they gleaned from the film.
Actually, it would be more like those same Buddhists trying to recreate Christianity based on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I don't see anything wrong with them callilng themselves Christians anymore than I do with the Asatru folks calling themselves that.
These poems were not really "holy texts" in the sense we think of Christians and the Bible. They were closer to entertainment.
Quote from: Syt on August 23, 2012, 09:11:20 AM
Also, Timmay, pray tell what you find so "fucking cool" about human sacrifice on a large scale?
It's subjective. Why wouldn't it be cool?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 11:51:16 AM
These poems were not really "holy texts" in the sense we think of Christians and the Bible. They were closer to entertainment.
So you know nothing about them? That's what I'm getting from this statement.
Quote from: merithyn on August 23, 2012, 11:45:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 11:40:39 AM
The thing is Max, these are people who are trying to reconstruct a religion that differed dramatically across a wide area from a few poems recorded and partially preserved at the far periphery of the area where people had these beliefs and try understand them through the lens of religion as they understand it in the modern world. It would be like a group of Chinese Buddhists who decided to develop an idea of Christianity based on watching the movie The Exorcist and started calling themselves "Baptist Christians" based on what they they thought they gleaned from the film.
Actually, it would be more like those same Buddhists trying to recreate Christianity based on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I don't see anything wrong with them callilng themselves Christians anymore than I do with the Asatru folks calling themselves that.
The thing is that at some point we have to insist that words have meaning. We don't have to choose between a world where there is a form of "Asatru" which we only see shadows of and a world where words only have the meaning we choose to give them at any moment. Languages are tools for communication amongst people who agree on the meanings of words. I can't arbitrarily declare myself female or blonde and expect to be treated as such.
It is belief in the gods and belief in the doctrine of the gods. Tradition is clear, these neo-pagans are making their own shit up and putting old norse names on them.
164 stanzas written 300 years after the death of a religion is not equivallent to a religious text liek the dead sea scrolls. Raz's comparisson was off. it's more like catching a 30 minute clip of the passion of the christ... if passion was written by someone who only had passing knowledge of the subject matter he was writing about :P
Quote from: merithyn on August 23, 2012, 11:53:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 11:51:16 AM
These poems were not really "holy texts" in the sense we think of Christians and the Bible. They were closer to entertainment.
So you know nothing about them? That's what I'm getting from this statement.
Basically they are a collection of hesiod style just so stories and homer style epic poems about the adventures of heros (often with thor as the hero with loki as sidekick) and books of wisdom like havamal. It is about what to believe not how to worship.
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2012, 12:00:27 PM
164 stanzas written 300 years after the death of a religion is not equivallent to a religious text liek the dead sea scrolls. Raz's comparisson was off. it's more like catching a 30 minute clip of the passion of the christ... if passion was written by someone who only had passing knowledge of the subject matter he was writing about :P
isn't that what Mel Gibson is?
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 12:05:00 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2012, 12:00:27 PM
164 stanzas written 300 years after the death of a religion is not equivallent to a religious text liek the dead sea scrolls. Raz's comparisson was off. it's more like catching a 30 minute clip of the passion of the christ... if passion was written by someone who only had passing knowledge of the subject matter he was writing about :P
isn't that what Mel Gibson is?
he had source material to plagerize from :D
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 11:58:00 AM
The thing is that at some point we have to insist that words have meaning. We don't have to choose between a world where there is a form of "Asatru" which we only see shadows of and a world where words only have the meaning we choose to give them at any moment. Languages are tools for communication amongst people who agree on the meanings of words. I can't arbitrarily declare myself female or blonde and expect to be treated as such.
It is belief in the gods and belief in the doctrine of the gods. Tradition is clear, these neo-pagans are making their own shit up and putting old norse names on them.
Which is why I asked you to define what an actual Asatru was. Since it means followers of the gods and modern Asatru follow gods that seems perfectly reasonable.
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 11:58:00 AM
It is belief in the gods and belief in the doctrine of the gods. Tradition is clear, these neo-pagans are making their own shit up and putting old norse names on them.
I don't know. There's a part of that, too, I'm sure. It pretty much has to be because there's no way to really know all of what was done/said/worshipped. But your own website says:
QuoteHávamál (English /ˈhaʊvəmaʊl/ HOW-və-mowl; English: Sayings of the high one) is presented as a single poem in the Poetic Edda, a collection of Old Norse poems from the Viking age. The poem, itself a combination of different poems, is largely gnomic, presenting advice for living, proper conduct and wisdom.
The verses are attributed to Odin, much like the biblical Book of Wisdom is attributed to Solomon. The implicit attribution to Odin facilitated the accretion of various mythological material also dealing with Odin.[1]
For the most part composed in the metre Ljóðaháttr, a metre associated with wisdom verse, Hávamál is both practical and metaphysical in content. Following the gnomic "Hávamál proper" follows the Rúnatal, an account of how Odin won the runes, and the Ljóðatal, a list of magic chants or spells.[2]
Based on this, a translation of the Havamal seems like the doctrine to follow. And the gods are well established. So by your definition, the neo-pagans seem like true Asatru.
Are they trying to get into Valhalla?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2012, 12:58:22 PM
Are they trying to get into Valhalla?
Bravely dying in battle with their weapon in the hands in battle with their enemy is the pre-requisite. If you die any other way you go to "Hel" (not hell) which is cold and boring. Valhalla is warm and fun. It's fratboy heaven.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2012, 12:58:22 PM
Are they trying to get into Valhalla?
No clue. I don't know that much about them. I just find it interesting that Viking finds them so distasteful because they're not "real" to him, but by his own definition they are.
I know nothing about them but I'm happy to assume they're all retard posers.
Quote from: merithyn on August 23, 2012, 01:01:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2012, 12:58:22 PM
Are they trying to get into Valhalla?
No clue. I don't know that much about them. I just find it interesting that Viking finds them so distasteful because they're not "real" to him, but by his own definition they are.
I don't find them distasteful, I just know from experience that they are hippy posers. It's a religion invented by people who want their own kind paganism.
As opposed to all the real religions that weren't invented at all.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 01:09:48 PM
As opposed to all the real religions that weren't invented at all.
touché
They were all invented, only with neo-paganism, scientology and mormonism we actually know who, how, where and when they were invented.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 01:09:48 PM
As opposed to all the real religions that weren't invented at all.
All of them are invented except for mine. :)
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 01:15:39 PM
They were all invented, only with neo-paganism, scientology and mormonism we actually know who, how, where and when they were invented.
I don't see how knowing the inventor makes the invention less useful.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 01:16:52 PM
I don't see how knowing the inventor makes the invention less useful.
I think the basis of the criticism is insincerity, not disutility.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 01:16:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 01:15:39 PM
They were all invented, only with neo-paganism, scientology and mormonism we actually know who, how, where and when they were invented.
I don't see how knowing the inventor makes the invention less useful.
We can track down Joseph Smith's convictions and Hubbards pre-Dianetics writings as well as the friends and relatives of the ditzy hippies that invented asatru. We had people test out the prophets and found them frauds.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 01:09:48 PM
As opposed to all the real religions that weren't invented at all.
Tradition lends respect to the other religions. Even if the hippie pagans said "we're starting a new religion, wanna join?" they're be ok, but they're trying to tie themselves to old religions and practices and pawning it off as authentic. That's just worthy of derision.
Quote from: merithyn on August 23, 2012, 11:53:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 11:51:16 AM
These poems were not really "holy texts" in the sense we think of Christians and the Bible. They were closer to entertainment.
So you know nothing about them? That's what I'm getting from this statement.
No, viking covers this fairly well. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are a guide as to what to believe. They are simply stories where the gods are characters. The actions of the gods may change dramatically depending on location. For instance, the story we have about the death of Balder is from Icelandic Christians. There is a few scraps of a story from Denmark that also covers the the death of Balder and is completely different. This indicates these stories really weren't doctrines, they were just stories they told to entertain. You shouldn't think of their religion as moralizing religion like say Christianity or Islam. It was a propitiatory religion. You would barter with the gods for something material like victory in battle or wealth. It was closer to what we think of as magic and superstition. Avoiding bad luck and making sacrifices to bribe the gods.
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2012, 01:21:15 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 01:09:48 PM
As opposed to all the real religions that weren't invented at all.
Tradition lends respect to the other religions. Even if the hippie pagans said "we're starting a new religion, wanna join?" they're be ok, but they're trying to tie themselves to old religions and practices and pawning it off as authentic. That's just worthy of derision.
Yes. When I pointed out something like that to one of my students, who is a Wiccan, he had this whole story about Druids going to Ireland after the Roman invasion and then lying low, eventually pretending to be Christian monks, and keepign the Old Ways safe and secret until they could be safely practiced once again.
If they just said, "We feel this is right, and it is new" I'd be less in clined to laugh.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 01:09:48 PM
As opposed to all the real religions that weren't invented at all.
Invented suggests a conscious attempt to create, as such I doubt most religions were "invented".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2012, 01:19:46 PM
I think the basis of the criticism is insincerity, not disutility.
If utility exists why is sincerity required?
Alternately, how does invention imply insincerity?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 01:24:29 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 23, 2012, 11:53:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 11:51:16 AM
These poems were not really "holy texts" in the sense we think of Christians and the Bible. They were closer to entertainment.
So you know nothing about them? That's what I'm getting from this statement.
No, viking covers this fairly well. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are a guide as to what to believe. They are simply stories where the gods are characters. The actions of the gods may change dramatically depending on location. For instance, the story we have about the death of Balder is from Icelandic Christians. There is a few scraps of a story from Denmark that also covers the the death of Balder and is completely different. This indicates these stories really weren't doctrines, they were just stories they told to entertain. You shouldn't think of their religion as moralizing religion like say Christianity or Islam. It was a propitiatory religion. You would barter with the gods for something material like victory in battle or wealth. It was closer to what we think of as magic and superstition. Avoiding bad luck and making sacrifices to bribe the gods.
A few years back I happened to be doing some reading about Norse mythology, and I was surprised about how little we actually know about their beliefs. Certainly I had been somewhat aware that less was known about their pantheon and practices, than say, Greco-Roman mythology, but I hadn't realized just how much less. Plus, while a great deal of what we know of Greco-Roman mythology is from more-or-less contemporaneous sources, much of what little we know of Norse mythology is from sources that come after the Norse themselves had abandoned their traditional beliefs and converted to Christianity.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 01:31:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2012, 01:19:46 PM
I think the basis of the criticism is insincerity, not disutility.
If utility exists why is sincerity required?
Alternately, how does invention imply insincerity?
Hard to believe a story if you just invented it, doesn't it?
I don't think they were big on writing stuff down. Oral tradition is ephemeral. Also, there were several different cultures and religions involved, if I'm not mistaken. They were all kind of lumped together after the fact.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 01:34:30 PM
Hard to believe a story if you just invented it, doesn't it?
What stories are you referring to? Can you give us an example?
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 01:31:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2012, 01:19:46 PM
I think the basis of the criticism is insincerity, not disutility.
If utility exists why is sincerity required?
Alternately, how does invention imply insincerity?
Light bulbs are insincere--they were invented by Edison. Or someone he stole them from.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 01:38:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 01:34:30 PM
Hard to believe a story if you just invented it, doesn't it?
What stories are you referring to? Can you give us an example?
Any story. If you make up a story about where you were last night, or how Druids disguise themselves as Catholic monks and kept their religion secret, or that space aliens threw people into a volcano a billion years ago, or how the spirits of Vikings told you to reform their religion you wouldn't believe your own story would you? After all, you just made it up.
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2012, 01:32:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 01:24:29 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 23, 2012, 11:53:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 11:51:16 AM
These poems were not really "holy texts" in the sense we think of Christians and the Bible. They were closer to entertainment.
So you know nothing about them? That's what I'm getting from this statement.
No, viking covers this fairly well. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are a guide as to what to believe. They are simply stories where the gods are characters. The actions of the gods may change dramatically depending on location. For instance, the story we have about the death of Balder is from Icelandic Christians. There is a few scraps of a story from Denmark that also covers the the death of Balder and is completely different. This indicates these stories really weren't doctrines, they were just stories they told to entertain. You shouldn't think of their religion as moralizing religion like say Christianity or Islam. It was a propitiatory religion. You would barter with the gods for something material like victory in battle or wealth. It was closer to what we think of as magic and superstition. Avoiding bad luck and making sacrifices to bribe the gods.
A few years back I happened to be doing some reading about Norse mythology, and I was surprised about how little we actually know about their beliefs. Certainly I had been somewhat aware that less was known about their pantheon and practices, than say, Greco-Roman mythology, but I hadn't realized just how much less. Plus, while a great deal of what we know of Greco-Roman mythology is from more-or-less contemporaneous sources, much of what little we know of Norse mythology is from sources that come after the Norse themselves had abandoned their traditional beliefs and converted to Christianity.
It's shocking how little we know about Greco-Roman mythology. It tends to come from only a few sources. And some sources like Ovid didn't even believe them. We know even less how their religions actually worked or how religious authorities viewed the mythology.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 01:54:24 PM
Any story. If you make up a story about where you were last night, or how Druids disguise themselves as Catholic monks and kept their religion secret, or that space aliens threw people into a volcano a billion years ago, or how the spirits of Vikings told you to reform their religion you wouldn't believe your own story would you? After all, you just made it up.
That is true. Now back to the discussion we were having: How does inventing a religion imply insincerity about it?
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2012, 01:53:54 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 01:31:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2012, 01:19:46 PM
I think the basis of the criticism is insincerity, not disutility.
If utility exists why is sincerity required?
Alternately, how does invention imply insincerity?
Light bulbs are insincere--they were invented by Edison. Or someone he stole them from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb
QuoteIn addressing the question of who invented the incandescent lamp, historians Robert Friedel and Paul Israel[3] list 22 inventors of incandescent lamps prior to Joseph Swan and Thomas Edison. They conclude that Edison's version was able to outstrip the others because of a combination of three factors: an effective incandescent material, a higher vacuum than others were able to achieve (by use of the Sprengel pump) and a high resistance that made power distribution from a centralized source economically viable.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 01:24:29 PM
You shouldn't think of their religion as moralizing religion like say Christianity or Islam. It was a propitiatory religion. You would barter with the gods for something material like victory in battle or wealth. It was closer to what we think of as magic and superstition. Avoiding bad luck and making sacrifices to bribe the gods.
This is the way all religions were prior to Moshe.
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2012, 01:21:15 PM
Tradition lends respect to the other religions. Even if the hippie pagans said "we're starting a new religion, wanna join?" they're be ok, but they're trying to tie themselves to old religions and practices and pawning it off as authentic. That's just worthy of derision.
Yeah, I kind of think that's a bit ridiculous, but then, there are a lot of Christians who believe a lot of ridiculous things, too. Not all, of course - kind of like not all Pagans believe that stuff.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 01:58:03 PM
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2012, 01:32:47 PM
A few years back I happened to be doing some reading about Norse mythology, and I was surprised about how little we actually know about their beliefs. Certainly I had been somewhat aware that less was known about their pantheon and practices, than say, Greco-Roman mythology, but I hadn't realized just how much less. Plus, while a great deal of what we know of Greco-Roman mythology is from more-or-less contemporaneous sources, much of what little we know of Norse mythology is from sources that come after the Norse themselves had abandoned their traditional beliefs and converted to Christianity.
It's shocking how little we know about Greco-Roman mythology. It tends to come from only a few sources. And some sources like Ovid didn't even believe them. We know even less how their religions actually worked or how religious authorities viewed the mythology.
Still almost an order of magnitude more than what we know about Norse myths.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 01:31:45 PM
If utility exists why is sincerity required?
Alternately, how does invention imply insincerity?
Sincerity is not required. Their pose brings them ostensible utility, and very little if any disutility to anyone else. But if we're trying to answer the question whether these goobers really believe what they say they believe we're asking the question of their sincerity.
I personally don't see any connection between invention and insincerity. For example the practitioners of some of the hallucenegic based religions seem very sincere that getting wacked out of your skull raises your consciousness.
Quote from: Maximus on August 23, 2012, 01:59:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2012, 01:54:24 PM
Any story. If you make up a story about where you were last night, or how Druids disguise themselves as Catholic monks and kept their religion secret, or that space aliens threw people into a volcano a billion years ago, or how the spirits of Vikings told you to reform their religion you wouldn't believe your own story would you? After all, you just made it up.
That is true. Now back to the discussion we were having: How does inventing a religion imply insincerity about it?
Cause religious texts are basically a series of stories? If you invent a group of gods, you know more then anyone that it's real. Am I leaving out something here?
Depending on how you define "religious texts" not all religions have them, and I don't think it would be accurate to call them all storybooks.
They do tell stories for the most part don't they?
Some do. The christian bible has stories. I don't know enough about the authorative texts of other religions to say. And of course authorative texts are rare among the newer religions.
Ah, okay. You don't know enough. That's good enough for me.
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2012, 12:00:27 PM
164 stanzas written 300 years after the death of a religion is not equivallent to a religious text liek the dead sea scrolls. Raz's comparisson was off. it's more like catching a 30 minute clip of the passion of the christ... if passion was written by someone who only had passing knowledge of the subject matter he was writing about :P
In all honesty, Christianity itself is largely based on the version that was decided on the Council of Nicaea, which took place about 300 years after the death of Christ... it pretty much took gospels out, kept others and re-wrote the Bible. So the basis of the religion isn't really deeply linked to what was followed by the early Christians of the 1st century AD (not to forget later changes, that led for example to the differences found between the Byzantine Bible and the Catholic Bible in the XVth century)
Or worse, how many Catholics know the Archangels Anael, Simiel, Oriphiel and Zachariel, for example? Highly respected 1,000 years ago, discarded by the modern Papacy...
I guess modern Christians aren't really Christians.
Are they myths, or are they stories? There is a difference.
Yi was right, judging is not on the tale, but the belief. A myth is fundamentally true to the believers, a story might just be hokum. One good way to give a bit of judgement is to observe the rituals undertaken and see if they have the emotional attachment that seems basic to all effective rituals.