www.Odroerirjournal.com

Facebook.com/Odroerir

Follow us on Twitter

© Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

The contents of this document and website, such as the compilation and arrangement of content includ-ing text, graphics, images and other materials, and the hypertext markup language (HTML), scripts, active server pages (ASP), or other content or software used in this document and website (collectively, the “Material”), are protected by copyright under both United States and foreign laws. All rights re-served. Unauthorized use of the Material violates copyright, trademark, and other laws. Regardless of the extent to which the Material is protected by copyright you agree that you may not sell or modify the Material or copy, display, retransmit, distribute, disseminate, sell, publish, broadcast, or otherwise use Material in any form or media for any public or commercial purpose, including the generation of deriva-tive material, except as expressly permitted by the author or authors. You must retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the original Material on any copy you make of the Material. The use of the Material in any document and/or on any other Website or any telecommunication media or in a networked computer environment for any purpose, without the prior express written permission of the author or authors, is prohibited.

This article is formatted to be printed two-sided and placed in a binder. The offset margins are inten-tional for those who would like to print a copy to keep in their personal libraries.

In This VolumeEditors Note on the First Volume ............................................... 2Matt Walker

Foreword..................................................................................... 3Bil Linzie

ArticlesReconstruction in Modern Heathenry: An Introduction............. 7Joshua Rood

Women in Heathenry: What We Find Beyond the Literature.... 17Jill Budynas

Some Animal Imagery in Anglian Heathenry........................... 21John Wills

Frankish Heathenry: An Overview........................................... 29Erik Lacharity

Sacred Groves in Germanic and Scandinavian Heathenry: An Introduction and One Family’s Experience........................ 36Gary P. Golden Jr.

Afterwords................................................................................ 42Joshua Rood

StaffMatt Walker .....................................................EditorTerrence Plum .................................................EditorJeff Dailey ...........................................Editor/LayoutJill Budynas .....................................................EditorJoshua Rood ...............................Editor/Peer Review

Bil Linzie .............................................Peer ReviewShane Ricks .........................................Peer ReviewMathias Nordvig ..................................Peer ReviewDan Oropallo .................Cover Art/Graphic Design

Óðrœrir 2

Volume 1 Editor’s Note

Enjoy the inaugural issue of Odroerir: The Heathen Journal, the first journal by and for Heathen Recon-structionists. What is a Heathen Reconstructionist, really though? That is perhaps the primary goal of this first issue: to set the pace of what sort of journal this will be, so instead of reading an explanation on it in this note, just look within! Hopefully by the time you’ve read this first issue, you will have a solid understanding of our definition of the term.

I can claim sole responsibility for the name (unlike the rest of the contents in the journal). I named it what I did because in the lore that’s the name of the biggest cauldron that held the mead of poetry and wis-dom. If you drink from it, you become wise. Yes, it’s pretentious as hell, but I don’t care. It’s poetic. I am the Executive Editor. It’s my baby. This magazine was my idea and I’ve been working on putting the whole thing together – but all that means, really, is that I’ve begged, pleaded, and cajoled a whole lot of people who are a whole lot smarter and more talented than me. These folks have submitted articles, book reviews, art work, photos, and other items, which have then been arranged in an aesthetically pleasing manner to what you now have before you.

We’re not sure how often it will come out. So far, we just know it will be AT LEAST bi-annual. I’ve managed to wrangle articles from some of the brightest minds in heathen reconstruction, and their work has been reviewed by an editing team that will set the bar high – individuals with 40 plus years in hea-thenry, and academics with degrees in Old Nordic Religion and History who work closely with leading scholars in the field.

And all that said, I believe what we’ve put together is something for everyone involved to be proud of, and for every heathen to enjoy. And not only have we put together this sweet journal, we’re disseminating it freely to all at no charge!

So, enjoy the journal. Pass it around. Discuss it. Email us with questions or suggestions. Perhaps you’d like to submit an article. We hope to grow and excel as time goes on, and as with any journal, the readership will be a key part of that. Drop us a line. Let us know what you think.

Matt Walker Volume 1 Executive EditorAugust 17, 2011

Óðrœrir 3

ForewordThe State of Modern American Heathenry

•By Bil Linzie

Heathenry circa 1995 had become a hodge-podge of neo-paganism where one could to choose which god’s hall one would die into and bide his (her) time until reincarnation kicked in; one walked a path working with various deities until he had developed a personal relationship with more gods than the next guy; everyone was either a gothí or one-in-training; and one knew each god’s favorite drink so that offerings and toasts could be in a proper fashion. Every 3rd person was either an expert rune-reader or had developed an intimate relationship with his totem-fetch so that nightly travels through the Nine Worlds were as common as chimichangas at the local mini-mart. Much precious forum time was filled with someone regaling us of flying among Valkyries and dragons. The other side of the heathen coin was the Rydbergians who were so obnoxious that they were banned repeatedly only to reincarnate with some other fake Old Norse name two weeks later.

The mid-to-late 90s were irritating to say the least. Between ’95-’97, I’d run across a tiny handful of folks interested in historical heathenry. In general, we slowly left email lists because we couldn’t excite folks like the neo-heathen could. Most of us became irritated with all the fluff and left in a huff. Those who were looking to follow a spiritual path and have a personal relationship were running the show. In 2000 CE, I started questioning everything in modern heathenry, and starting with ‘Germanic Spirituality’ which directly questioned the rampant ‘borrowing’ from Wicca, SCA, and Native Americans. I purposefully exposed many of the ‘sources’ of this information only to catch flak from the more popular side of neo-heathenry. The neo-heathens held their high-ground. Officially, I quit Ásatrú in 2002 and was a very lonely, somewhat dejected, rejected, and ejected-from-the-mainstream heathen. 2003. I started lurking on Ásatrúlore.org. (Several of my fellow New Mexicans were there, and I was getting lonely for heathen company.) What I saw there was the rise of a new breed of heathen, young heathens of a completely different caliber. They not only had a voice, but a loud one at that. 2004. I signed up under the pseudonym of parallel_lines2000, but after about 6 mos., my cover was blown. Not only had people read my stuff, but they were doing the same thing as I was! They were researching various topics because they actually interested in it and wanted the same thing as me; they wanted ‘historical heathenry’ brought to the fore, and they wanted a modern form of heathenry compatible with historical fact but also compatible with life in the 21st century! What really drew me back into actively participating as a heathen, though, was that many of them only had 2-3 years as a heathen behind them and they were already where I was at 30 years of being heathen. It was as if they were on an accelerated track.

In my 32 years as a heathen this was a breed that I’d never seen before. They took an active interest in bringing historical heathenry into the 21st century rather than making up a 21st century version based on neo-paganism. They actually wanted to look at historical fact and discuss it. They separated themselves out as real wheat-heathen from the chaff-fluff and then had the audacity to reject the chaff-fluff vehemently. Their rationale was and remains to reclaim as much as possible and when chaff showed up in the forum, there was a resounding collective cry raised up: “What’s the source of your claim?” And they have a name: they are Reconstructionists. Reconstructionism isn’t new anywhere but in heathenry. It’s been around for quite a while among other quieter groups like Romuva, some of the Hellenistic group, Jews and even

Óðrœrir 4

Christians, but for whatever reason the spark was fanned into flame among heathens between 2002 and 2004. Reconstructionism is no longer an Ásatrúlore.org phenomenon but has cross-pollinated into other fora on the net. This new breed hasn’t always been heartily welcomed either, but it is persistent and the presence is there. And, I, for one, can honestly say that I not only am glad to be a part of it but am also proud to do so.

Reconstructionism. It’s a hot topic and always sure to raise at least some eyebrows; gets the heart pumping no matter which camp one belongs to. Depending on the group, however, it can either be the vinegar in the wine or the fruit of the vine.

Now, onto the question “Why does the greater presence of reconstructionists in modern heathenry make heathenry better than it was a decade and a half ago?” I was originally given the task to write a piece on the State of Heathenry, but to answer the question, I would like to explain why this approach appeals to me as well as others.

First, I’d like to say that the term ‘reconstructionist heathen’ is really two terms: ‘reconstructionist’ and ‘heathen.’ For example, I am both a reconstructionist and a heathen. I wasn’t always, though. For almost 25 years I was just a heathen. In fact, when I first ran across an e-mail conversation between several people who were having a discussion regarding ‘death into the grave-mound’ rather than ‘dying into the halls of favorite god,’ I was appalled. It was another two years before I could understand what* they were talking about and only after that was I able to take up this method of investigation and gaze into my own cultural past.

Before I go any further let me present this story (for any who know me, you know that I can never discuss anything without telling stories).

I am a traditional dulcimer player (along with a lot of other instruments, but for this discussion I’ll stick with ‘dulcimer’). Now, the dulcimer is an old timey instrument which plays, technically, out of only one key. If you know anything about music, however, you will also know that any key in the chromatic scale has also seven modes which go by handy names such as mixolydian, ionian, aeolian, dorian, and a few others that I don’t even know how to tune into. Now the weird thing about a dulcimer is that it only has eight notes to the octave rather than 12 like a guitar or a banjo. (Technically, a fiddle, which I also play, has any number of notes within an octave — a lot of really bad ones, too, which I am also quite capable of hitting.) Having only eight notes somewhat limits what one can and cannot do, but the most amazing thing about working within this set of limitations is that the dulcimer really isn’t that limited. I have heard jazz, rock tunes, old-time swing, and even classical music played on this so-called ‘limited instrument.’ In fact, the instrument isn’t really ‘limited’ at all; it’s just that the player himself is required to be creative, and, of course, is required to know both the instrument and the music he’s trying to play.

Now, I’ve played dulcimer since 1978 but only been a reconstructionist since 1995. When I ran across the discussion mentioned above, I still held to the idea that heathenry, like other neo-pagan plug-and-play religions, could be anything that I wanted it to be. What I wanted was a ‘heathen-dulcimer’ that had all 12 modern tones (like a guitar played in the lap) instead of being limited to 8. The limitation is in the player not in the instrument. Early on we all wanted to believe that ‘interpretation of the lore’ was simple – we

Óðrœrir 5

discounted the idea that perhaps the ‘worldview’ may have been different or we decided that we must use our modern worldview to interpret because we were modern folk. The new crew of reconstructionists didn’t seem to buy it, however; they wanted to know what their ancestors were thinking. They saw the modern worldviews as an impediment to understanding, i.e. a limitation.

Reconstructionism does not belong solely to heathens. Rudolf Simek is a Catholic theologian who has made a career out of delving into ancient Germanic heathenry. Being a reconstructionist, then, only requires one thing: that one takes a scientific approach to heathenry (or whatever else one is reconstructing) to understand how the makers constructed the thing in the first place and how they understood it, felt about it, and interacted with it after it was created. Being a reconstructionist requires no belief. In fact, ‘belief’ can actually be a hindrance to understanding the data in hand — ‘belief’ can interfere greatly with ‘interpretation of the facts.’ To be a good reconstructionist, one must be able to step away from one’s cultural background as well as spiritual background.

I started as a reconstructionist in 1995 and became committed to it as of ’97. By that time there were a number of heathen ‘customs’ which had become accepted as historical fact: the Hammer Rite, the eight-fold calendar, rune-casting/ reading, seið as neo-shamanism, the pop-American form of reincarnation, old-souls, walk-ins, even UFOs. Nigel Pennick had published his book on runic astrology and everyone else seemed to be jumping onto the bandwagon. Mondays were especially interesting since the X-files had aired the night before – the plot of the show dictated the direction of the email discussion. Back in ’95, modern heathenry looked no more like historical heathenry than did Catholicism, Wicca, or Buddhism. At the time, creating elaborate rites had become far more important than historical fact. Both common sense and historical fact had become a burden to creativity and had been all but dispensed with to make room for Scully and Mulder’s newest I-want-to-believe discovery of the night before.

My second foray into experiential anthropology/ archeology was based in the following question: “How did the ancient Germanic peoples make bread?” (That was then followed by the next question: “How did they figure out how to make cheese?”) 15 years down the line, I now know the answer to both questions and engaged in making a nice loaf of wheat-rye sourdough bread made with my own sourdough starter yesterday and it should be ready for cutting today. Yesterday, I engaged in and participated in my own cultural heritage which for me is a far more spiritual act than reading runes or scribbling out the script for a way-cool Ostara rite. Participating as a fine upstanding member in my own long line of German cultural heritage is far more important to me that was 15 years ago.

Reconstructionism still isn’t really popular among a handful of people mainly because they feel that by sticking to historical fact somehow ‘creativity’ is stifled. Although there was a time when I’d have said that, I don’t think that now. I think the reason that these folks feel this way is because they’ve never asked themselves the right questions. Most likely, they continue to do what I had done for my first 25 years as a modern heathen which is to first generate an answer and then create a question for it.

Which now brings me back to my first personal foray in experiential anthropology/ archeology, i.e. reconstructionism. “What if what I had perceived as ‘gaps’ weren’t really gaps at all, but were instead were just thought to be ‘gaps’ because I had seen something similar in some other religion?” Maybe, I just thought the Hammer Rite had to be there to ‘make the ground sacred for the blót’ and that because Wiccans and Native Americans did something along these lines, we heathens must also have had something comparable. Rather than look at how land, particularly cultivated land, was viewed and treated by early Germanic peoples, I assumed the answer (‘we need sacred space’) and got busy generating how such a thing should look. That line of questioning lead me to the conclusion that I had no understanding of the ancient Germanic heathen’s mindset, his worldview, and so I set about the task learning it all thinking that it would take me but a few months or so. Fifteen years later, I’m still at it, still think there is no need to ‘fill

Óðrœrir 6

the gaps,´ and am still learning to play heathen tunes on this old instrument we call ‘modern heathenry.’ This now seems to be the standard for the new reconstructionists.

This new guard has also built in some safe measures. For example, objectivity. Nice concept, but its not completely possible. If we learn about our own worldview, first, and understand many of our own limitations, we can go a long way toward objectivity, but not completely. How far can we really step outside our own convictions without falling completely apart or ending up like a Zen master who’s found Nirvana? Even the Zen master knows that ‘first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.’ Reconstructionists step from the 21st century back into the 8th, but at some point, they must return albeit somewhat altered to the 21st. The interpretation is everything and to assure that at least some type of objectivity is taking place in our own interpretations, we compare notes with others who are engaged in the same processes, and remain willing to admit that our interpretations just might be wrong – something certainly not possible 20 years ago. Real discussion rather than weak attempts ‘to impress’ is becoming the standard.

Heathenry, real heathenry, that is related to and is a natural extension of historical heathenry, now has a chance to grow and flourish in the modern era. The days of borrowing from neo-pagans and Óðrœrir 10 the new age groups is slowly coming to a grinding halt. These borrowed ‘traditions’ are being culled out as unnecessary and unacceptable by the new reconstructionists on the one hand while new art, music, literature and philosophies are at the same time being built upon the foundation of historical Germanic heathenry. Heathenry is no longer ‘another alternative religion’ but has become an entire way of living complete with its own native worldview. In the past 8 years or so, heathenry has grown up and matured into its own.

There are, of course, some things that most would prefer not to reconstruct in the 21st-century such as slavery, exposing children, raping and pillaging, and carving ‘a blood eagle,’ but there is no longer anything preventing us from asking about it and exploring it as historical fact and from looking at what purpose these traditions might have served. We don’t need to deny that these things may have existed historically within our own cultural heritage. I live in the 21st-century. I drive a truck, I work in the medical field, I own a computer, and I get flu vaccine every year because my job requires it. In fact, I’m sitting in my office at work dictating the short piece on ‘Reconstructionism 101′ directly into my computer using a speech-recognition program packed into my Linux. Heard a fellow say on the radio today, “Follow a worldview to its natural conclusion, then decide whether you can live with that.” We have and we can.

I started this thing out by saying that being a modern heathen-reconstructionist (a more correct version of the term) brings us reconstructionists ‘the greatest of satisfaction.’ It’s true that we reconstructionists do what we do because it makes modern heathenry a pleasure for us. We don’t feel a need to ‘fill in the gaps’ or ‘bring heathenry up-to-date’ any longer because we know that historical heathenry is alive and doing well in the 21st century. Of all the things I’ve done in my life (which is quite a bit) adding the approach of reconstructionism to my being heathen and joining others who are doing the same has brought me the most satisfaction.

Shortly, I’ll leave here and go home to eat a sandwich of homemade Leberkaes, and homemade mustard on homemade sourdough bread – I’ll be participating in my own cultural heritage, the fruits of my research. Perhaps after that I’ll knock off a few tunes on the old dulcimer knowing that I am actively contributing to my cultural heritage which extends all the way back in the archaeological record to the faint beginnings of germanicity.

Lastly, the State of Modern Heathenry? It’s not only alive and well but has taken on a level of excitement like never before. The State of Modern Heatheny = healthy and getting healthier.

Over the course of the last decade, the term “reconstructionism”1 has surged forward as part of a very real movement within American heathenry2. The axiom of this movement has been a shift towards an approach that is quite different from those previously advocated in most mainstream circles, and it is helping to redefine and reshape heathen communities in very powerful ways. The term “reconstructionism” did not really begin to circulate in conjunction with modern heathenry until the late 1990’s in America. When Bil Linzie first published the article, “Germanic Spirituality” on July 11 2003 and followed it up with the first truly comprehensive analysis of reconstructionism in heathenry in 20043, the term was only just beginning to make headway. Today the word is commonplace in heathen communities across the United States, and in many ways this is thanks to the research of Linzie and his contemporaries, who understood that in order for heathenry to be validated in the modern world it would need to be based upon historical reality. Yet even with the rise of reconstructionism within heathenry and a decade of circulation, its definition and the concepts it carries with it are being stunted by misunderstandings and misrepresentations propagated by opponents and proponents alike. The purpose of this article is to introduce a compact introduction to reconstructionism which will help dispel some of these misunderstandings and replace them with an understanding of what it really is. It is also the intent of this article to provide the basic arguments as to why reconstructionism is an important approach to heathenism, and how this translates into the individual’s understanding of heathenry.

Before reconstructionism as it is can be discussed, some of the more prominent misunderstandings need to be addressed in order to explain what it is not. The popular belief that reconstructionism is an attempt to recreate the “Viking world” and to recreate the objects and events associated with that is a misunderstanding which has given rise to one of the more common arguments posed against it. That is “Ásatrú is a living breathing religion, and we should be focused on growing and developing instead of

1 - “Reconstructionism” is also called “reconstructionalism” by some. For the purpose of this article it will be strictly called “reconstruc-tionism”, and describes a method, not a sect or a branch within heathenry. It should be noted, however, that there are sects and branches that are beginning to develop because of reconstructionism, and the differences it has created between those who subscribe to its method, and those who do not.

2 - “Heathen/ry” as it is used in this article, describes the religions and cultures of the pre-Christian Germanic peoples in all their various forms from the time they are first recorded by Roman scribes, until their respective conversion periods. It is also used to describe mod-ern day groups of people who claim to worship or are attempting to rebuild the old “Heathen” religions.

3 - Uncovering the Effects of Cultural Background on the Reconstruction of Ancient Worldviews, Bil Linzie, 8th March, 2004.

Reconstructionism in modern heathenry

An Introduction•

By Joshua Rood

Articles

Óðrœrir 8

trying to go back in time or simply imitate rituals.” The reality however, is that reconstructionism has nothing to do with ‘things’ or ‘events’. The heathen reconstructionist should have no interest in rebuilding the “Viking world” or the “heathen way of life” as it was a millennia ago. Certainly there are groups of modern heathens who choose to wear Viking Age garb during events and there are those that have attempted to construct particular social structures or imitate rituals exactly as they are described in history texts. These should not be mistaken for the reconstructionism of heathenry however. That’s not what they are. They are simply ‘things’ and ‘actions. If reconstructionism was about imitating events, objects, or even rituals then it may well be renamed “reenactment” and it would indeed be a static and rigid pursuit.

It is also said of reconstructionism (as it pertains to heathenry) that it is the process of reconstructing an ancient heathen religion. On the surface this would appear to be true, and it is to some degree, but this definition inherently omits any of the reality behind that process. It fails to address exactly what is really being reconstructed, and it neglects the process of how an individual goes about that reconstruction. If it is a religion, then on what terms is it being reconstructed? Is the religion being ciphered out of a vague understanding of an entirely foreign culture like broken jewelry out of sand and wired together to the shape and understanding of a modern American with a Judeo-Christian background? If this is the case, then one cannot claim that the end result of this process is a reconstructed religion when it is really a modern construct bearing the surface appearance of its original form. The original spiritual framework has been lost. It is with this understanding that any researcher of heathen religion should operate. The reality is that the spiritual framework which we label as “heathenry” is inexplicably bound to the culture and locality from which it developed and cannot be separated. The very idea that religion and culture can be separated is in fact, inherently “unheathen”.

Religion,’ in our modern sense of the word, is an ideal divorced from culture, from landscape, from language, and from worldview. A term which I have often used in the past is ‘modular religion’ as opposed to ‘ethnic religion.’ A modular religion is a religion which can be easily imported and exported across cultural boundaries. The most common modern example of a modular religion is Christianity…The concept is completely self-contained, essentially, complete with its own rules, laws, axioms, and corollaries, i.e. a module. A modular religion stands in direct contrast to an ethnic religion such as the indigenous religions of Africa, Australia, Alaska, and Greenland. Anthropologists over the past 150 years have been entertained, fascinated, and frustrated by how closely bound religion-culture-worldview in these regions are to landscape-occupation-environment.4

Heathenism historically was a series of ethnic religions. In order to reconstruct a model of any of the ancient heathen religions the adherent must thoroughly investigate the culture that they are entwined with. One must investigate the social structure, the language, the customs and the political system not to find things to reconstruct or how to do things. These are simply the aesthetics of cultural worldview. Rather, the researcher must seek to understand the “why” which shaped those systems and must try to comprehend that worldview from which the investigated religion has developed. It is the worldview which formed the foundation from which heathen practice, action, belief, and tradition developed amongst the pre-Christian Germanic people. The worldview produced the “why” and it is the worldview itself that we aim to

4 - Linzie 2007.

Óðrœrir 9

reconstruct.Worldview as it is defined is how an individual subconsciously interprets relationships between

perceived events, as well as the logic used to explain one’s personal relationship to the world outside of the self.5 It is the very matrix through which we understand our world, and it is tied directly to the culture and environment that we are born and raised in. Because worldview’s primary shaper is culture, a middle class American has an entirely different worldview than an Indian Hindu or a member of the Huli people of Papua New Guinea. Likewise, the worldview of an American, any American or any European for that matter is exceedingly different from that of the pre-Christian Germanic people, and they themselves would have different religious and cultural worldviews depending on when and where they were. These differences must be recognized and acknowledged by the reconstructionist.

It is important to note that worldview is not a body of knowledge. It is a system of interpretation; a type of “map”, which not only defines relationships between events, but also predicts how two events interact with one another.6 Because the map defines, describes, and helps to predict interactions between events, the model leads to the development of protocols for what that particular worldview considers “proper interaction.” In other words, social mores, legal systems, and moral and ethical systems are developed. Lastly the worldview becomes a cosmological model and it becomes necessary for the guidelines of both secular and religious ceremony. The worldview builds the framework for how an individual understands religion, and how that individual interprets the guidelines for developing practice within it.

Since we are not born into a heathen culture, the single biggest challenge in understanding their worldview is the danger of internalizing and processing that which we learn about the ancient heathens through our own “unheathen” filters, which are inherently foreign to the customs and beliefs we are investigating. The human mind is prone to reinterpreting information it receives into that which it understands and when it comes face to face with that which it does not understand, particularly when exposed to a separate culture, the result is often referred to as “culture shock”. It is very easy for an American to look at the Hindu caste system, and say “that is unjust”. Likewise, the thought of arranged marriages in Hindu society are unsettling and unthinkable to our American ideals. However, traditional marriages are still the overwhelming marriage type in India and to the Hindu families that follow this practice it is the “correct” way of doing things. Because it is very difficult for an American to accept the idea of a caste system, true conversion to Hinduism is perhaps impossible. However, the researcher must be able to set aside their preconceived notions as best as they can, in order to put the worldview of the cultural group they are investigating into a fair context. 7

While it’s easy to point to differences in worldview between an Anglo American and an Indian Hindu, and while the American seeking to fully understand the Hindu worldview can opt to move to India, American heathens do not have that option and must consciously safeguard themselves from misinterpretation. To the heathen using the reconstructionist approach it is crucial to accept that we have a vastly different worldview from that which we are trying to study and reconstruct. If we are not aware of the concepts of worldview and cultural context then we will instinctively and subconsciously reinterpret what we learn of pre-Christian Germanic thought through our own modern lens; our “map of interpretation” and the inevitable outcome will be cultural misappropriation.8 We will no longer be reconstructing a version of

5 - Merriam-Webster 2011.6 - Linzie 2004.7 - It should be noted that many Hindus, particularly in the US and Europe no longer practice arranged marriage, and in many ways the

caste system is beginning to devolve. Whether these social changes are taking place due to shifts within the Hindu worldview or from influence from outside of it is not the topic of this article, but can be read about in Barbara and Thomas Metcalf ’s A Concise History of Modern India.

8 - An interesting and easy to read essay concerning cultural misappropriation was recently published in The Wild Hunt. Kulasundari Devi,

Óðrœrir 10

heathen religion or worldview, but rather something entirely different and most likely constructed with cultural schemas that are inherited from Christianity.9 The plethora of new age and neo-pagan movements within America are a prime example of this end result, with their emphasis on personal relationships with deities, afterlife rewards, and a focus on a “spiritual growth”.

I have thus far used the term “modern” to describe today’s American worldview, but this is in many ways misleading. It gives the notion that our worldview is more developed and superior to that of the ancient heathen. Indeed opponents of reconstructionism have attempted to use this argument for years to justify interpreting information from a “modern perspective which modernizes heathenry” but it is a sincerely flawed argument. The reality is that in America today, a vast proportion of our culture is permeated and shaped by Christianity and urbanization. This is the foundation of much of our worldview and it is not based off of a natural evolution of Germanic thought over time. While parts of heathen culture have survived, in the myths for example, due to our “modern” environment we naturally interpret and even think through Christian schemas. Such schemata must be reworked in order to approximate heathenry, and the only way to do that is to reconstruct, be acquainted with, and understand heathen schema.

The reality is that American society today is a product that has been shaped by layer after layer of social and economic change, from the Industrial Revolution to the Protestant Reformation to the start of the Renaissance before that and so on. Each movement between today and the time of the pre-Christian heathen has emphasized its own concepts of values and ideal parameters of human interaction that are further and further removed from those that were originally a part of heathen cultures. The heathen concepts of innengard and utgard, frith and luck have been replaced or given entirely new form again and again so that they have lost their native context. Two thousand years of established Christian schemata have so thoroughly saturated western culture that simply by existing in this society, one will be imparted with a worldview that is decidedly “unheathen”.

When it comes to the concept of religion, Christian upbringing and environment is inescapable today. There is nothing in the United States including new age religions such as Wicca, which has not been formed, manipulated and shaped by urbanization and the revelatory module religion, Christianity. This is the implicit “order” of things. It is what has created our filter of interpretation, and we are largely unaware of it. You can have never stepped foot inside of a church, and still you will interpret every action, every relationship between man, earth, work, family, god, and every aspect of life through this filter or worldview. Even radically opposed belief systems, such as Satanism, are nothing more than a reflection of that which they oppose. They are based off of and reactionary to Christian thought. They fail to break free of it however, and in the end are nothing more than a reactionary module

Even the concept of what “religion” is differs vastly between our current worldview and the worldview of the pre-Christian Germanic peoples. There is no indication or evidence that these people even had a sense of “religion”. The closest early terms10 translate to “custom”, “the way we commonly do things”, or “tradition”, and are in no way separated from the mundane world. They have left us no words which may imply “prayful”, or “spiritual”. To consciously engage in an activity strictly as a spiritual exercise is only necessary in world rejecting religions.11 Christianity, Wicca, Buddhism and Islam are all modular, world

“Hinduism, Indo-Paganism, and Cultural Appropriation”, (June 22, 2010)9 - Christianity is the prime religious model that our worldview works with.10 - ON siðr, AS sidu, seodu11 - See Russell, 1994.

Russell defines world rejecting religions as generally escapist in nature and holding the belief in a soul and spiritual world which are eternal, and are separate from a transitory physical world. They are essentially soteriological, eschatological, and universal in nature. World accepting religions are generally folk-centered, culturally specific, and do not focus on transcendence to another world, or salvation. Their religiosity is tied to their culture and their environment, and not on an “otherworld”.

Óðrœrir 11

rejecting religions and can be separated out from cultural tradition. They are “transcultural”. Christianity and Wicca are similar in that both can be added to a culture to produce a new variation centered around the same theme. Likewise, much of these religions sense of ‘spirituality’ is separable from culture. The sense of ‘spirituality’ found today often involves some form of meditation, quiet reflection, prayer, or a worshipful demeanor in which the individual connects or seeks to connect with some otherworldly entity or hidden revelation, or does so simply to feel at peace and whole with the world and one’s self. The Germanic heathen religion/tradition/worldview on the other hand, like most indigenous folk worldviews, was a world accepting tradition and closely tied to the very land and culture where it was practiced and could not easily be separated from it. Within these traditions, law, cultural norms, and proper behavior are all interconnected with religious belief. Maintenance of spiritual fulfillment in this sort of world accepting system, is achieved by maintaining one’s standing within a described community through adhesion to a prescribed set of social principles which that community has defined. Generally one does not seek otherworldly satisfaction in the spiritual sense mentioned above, but seeks to broaden his base and standing in his community by expanding on his skills, responsibilities, and reputation. Interactions with the “otherworldly” forces that are the gods are intended to directly influence this world in numinous forms such as luck. They are not intended to further ones “otherworldly” standing.

Modern “pagan” religions such as Ásatrú, Romuva, and Religio Romana among others should strive to understand the pre-Christian worldview and cultural context of the beliefs and rituals they are drawing from, if they are to be revived. However, the primary impediment is the fact that in order to be able to do this their revivalists must collect and analyze information through the Christianized, modern filters which were created by the culture that trained those people to subconsciously interpret in the first place. This means that quite often the individual will think that they understand the information they are studying in an accurate heathen context, but in reality they are interpreting it in their own way and are taking the information out of its context and stripping it of its original meaning. The inevitable outcome then is Christian schema and worldview remaining firmly established, under “pagan” guise. The single greatest tool with which to combat this issue is to simply understand that this is the case and to be aware of it. The researcher must have a willingness to set aside all preconceived beliefs and notions while doing the research. We should question in spite of the fact that we may discover in the course of examination that some of our most cherished beliefs may have been accepted on blind faith taken from our own worldview’s misinterpretation of the subject at hand.

Furthermore, it is completely natural to subconsciously filter new ideas through an individual’s natural feedback cycle (worldview). It is difficult to break the cycle and must be worked on consciously and honestly, bit by bit and is a lifelong process. This is the nature of adopting a different worldview. It took centuries for the Germanic people to totally and truly convert to the Christian worldview which simply did not fit with their own, as discussed by James Russell below:

A Strong sense of social unity and collective security prevailed among the Germanic Peoples in the early Middle Ages … (They) did not have immediate social and spiritual needs which Christianity might fulfill. Also the homogeneity of early medieval Germanic society… did not predispose to the Christian message, Christianity tends to flourish in the heterogeneous societies in which there exist high levels of anomie, or social destabilization…the relationship of social structure to ideological structure

Óðrœrir 12

and religious expression plays a significant role in this inquiry.12

This is demonstrated in early Germanic poetry. While “Christian”, poems such as Dream of the Rood, the Anglo Saxon gospel, The Heliand, The Wanderer, and Beowulf demonstrate powerful Germanic ideals that were foreign to Christianity, and which are not to be found within its module. Christ is viewed as a roving warrior, God the Father resides in “Hill fort on the highest mount”13 and the greatest source of pleasure in life is found in the mead hall or at symbel amidst the living community. Russell argues that while the native Germanic worldview was eventually “Christianized”, and thus lost, much of its influence on Christianity has also remained to this day.14

The intent of these examples is not to discourage the reader, but rather to underscore the reality that “converting” to heathenry is not nearly so simple as rejecting so called Christian teachings and adopting “new gods” in the place of Christ. One cannot become “heathen” by switching out one body of knowledge for another. Unplugging one set of practice and lore from one’s worldview and plugging another into the slot is akin to changing the flavor of gelatin one uses but retaining the same mold. While this has been exactly the case for modular religions including the waves of new age, neo-pagans that have swept through America in the past several decades, it simply cannot be so if one is to reconstruct an ethnic religion such as historical heathenism:

The group avows itself in all silence to neo-paganism. They celebrate here their winter-solstice ceremony. The fire is a beacon of light for the sun which gradually blesses the earth with longer days, and during the closing of Nights of Yule-Tide -so say the old myths- the seeds buried in the earth slowly awake. At the same time this bonfire will magically draw the sun ever closer to mankind. The group’s leader [ goðí, in common parlance] offers some sage, St. John’s wort, and brot [to the fire]. The “gifts” which draws the group closer together are supposed to express thanks to all the spirits of nature. Like thousands of other neo-pagan groups all over the world, this small community attempts to revive the ancient practice of the winter-solstice ritual that is still practiced by many indigenous peoples today.” As this example shows the neo-pagans themselves have expressed very little to do with the actual Germanic religion–and the skill and knowledge with which they do this is little more than modest. A rekindling of the Viking Age religion of Thor, Odin and Frey and with it a revival of the ancient Germanic mythology is not to be found, at least in neo-pagan circles.15

This quote is by Rudolf Simek, who is one of the leading scholars of Old Norse religion. It strikes at the heart of neo-paganism but to the heathen who is engaged in reconstructionism it exemplifies the importance of such an approach. Simek himself, while not a heathen, is a strict reconstructionist, alongside any of the other leading scholars in the field of Old Norse religion or history. The approach is inescapable for any scholar interested in understanding ancient cultures. Anyone who is engaged in this sort of research is practicing reconstructionism to some degree. The only real question is how good the adherent is at

12 - Russell 1994, p. 20.13 - The Heliand 1992.14 - Russell 1994.15 - Simek 2003.

Óðrœrir 13

sticking to source material, and setting aside personal misinterpretations. Strict reconstructionism as it is defined by those who advocate the described approach, is the only method which may reasonably “rekindle” any sort of heathen practice that is in any way akin to the Viking Age religion of Thor, Odin and Frey. Indeed this process has already begun, and the differences between those who are rekindling the old heathen religions, and those who advocate neo-paganism have become quite apparent.

The following is a small set of examples which demonstrate how the reconstructionist will approach historical heathenry and how this effects their understanding and practice. These examples are used only to illustrate a point and not to serve as a full guideline to reconstructionism itself.

The reconstructionist questions all assumptions and concepts, and thus questions the supposition that ‘belief’ must be a necessary component to modern heathen praxis. What was the Old Norse or Old High German or the Old Saxon word for “belief”? Was it a word that heathens used and recognized, or was it a representation of an early Christian concept? Bernard Maier (and many others) in his Die Religion der Germanen provides ample evidence that such a theme was not recognized as part of the early Germanic worldview. The reconstructionist is, according to Bil Linzie “treading on good solid heathen ground with historical precedence for support.” He does not recognize any real importance of “faith” or “dogma”, and is in a position to question everything he studies. This is not to say that the reconstructionist heathen has no belief or “personal unverifiable gnosis” (UPG). This is far from the truth. It simply means that with the understanding that “belief” and “faith” are not the centerpieces of the heathen tradition the reconstructionist is willing to give up previous beliefs or notions should they conflict with evidence to the contrary. This shouldn’t even be the mark of a “reconstructionist”, though. It should be what any good and honest researcher does. The reconstructionist is also willing to leave information that has been uncovered as it is, without adding modern interpolations or assumptions. Because of this approach, the reconstructionist heathen has been able to ask many questions, and hence have an entirely different outlook on proposed queries such as:

1. How much of the Eddic material is Christian interpolation or interpretation?

2. Why doesn’t the tribal separation of the Vanir versus the Aesir show up in Gothic, Old High Ger-man, Old Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon sources? Does it seem very old in Scandinavian sources?

3. Was Óðinn viewed as ‘the High God’ in all Germanic linguistic branches? Was he viewed as the High God in all of Scandinavia, and how long did he seem to have this status?

The question pertaining to the Vanir was recorded by Linzie over seven years ago. Shortly afterwards, Rudolf Simek published the article “The Vanir: an Obituary” in which he provides the compelling argument that the notion that the Vanir were a historically separate tribe of Gods from the Aesir should be put to rest once and for all. There never was a separate tribe of “fertility gods” as previously supposed.16 Since that time his argument was challenged by other scholars, in regards to linguistics, but it is still generally accepted that there were not two semantically separate tribes of gods in working heathen religion. I have chosen to still use this example because while many in the neo-pagan circles were forced to rethink their beliefs and their practice, heathens that had taken a reconstructionist approach to this question did not find their beliefs challenged, because this information changed nothing about the heathen worldview as we understand it. In fact this idea had been suspect to many heathens relying on the method of reconstructionism for years, who had no practice based off of the assumption that their ever was such a tribe. Heathens utilizing the

16 - Simek December 2010.

Óðrœrir 14

reconstructionist method did not find their traditions to suddenly be conflicting with newfound data.The method of reconstructionism does not however, simply dismantle all potential “truth”, by holding

it as questionable. On the contrary, through such an approach there is plenty that we do know about heathenry as it was historically. It is simply a matter of “unlearning” what one assumes about heathenry that will enable that individual to construct a solid foundation off of which to develop. Bil Linzie has already constructed a list, which was adapted to suit heathenry from Edward Hall’s Beyond Culture17 and which I have made some minor adjustments to. This is only a list, intended to be used as a set of examples to the point.

1. Accept that Ásatrú (heathenry) as a religious framework is probably complete (but not fully inter-preted) and can stand on its own without modern interpolation or “filling in the gaps”.

Note: Assuming that becoming heathen is simply a matter of switching one religion for another is left-over baggage from the late 20th century. Such a practice lacks in any in-depth understanding of the worldview.

2. Ásatrú spirituality is based on the interacting with the real world in a way which supports the well-being of family and community, and which supports and is supported by communal traditions and social mores. It is not and never has been about looking outward or inward.

Note: This is exactly the dividing point between a world-accepting and a world-rejecting religion.

3. “Final rewards” are directly correlated to the memories left behind after one’s death.

Note: The concepts of reincarnation, salvation, special judgment by a divinity, or special rewards in the afterlife have never really been a part of the Viking Age Germanic way of life. They are rather the hallmarks of a world-rejecting religion and began to show up during the time of conversion. Understanding and being satisfied that one has added to his community by good works during life, thereby leaving behind good, fond memories after death, and so that one is welcomed into the home or land of the dead is the hallmark of world-accepting religions such as early Greek, Shinto, tribal religions, etc.

4. The family is the smallest recognizable unit in Viking Age philosophy; the individual is but one part of the family. ‘Rugged individualism’ is both a foreign and a modern concept.

Note: Individualism is a deeply ingrained part of the American way of life with few exceptions such as certain Native American tribes or the Amish who maintained the older Germanic concept of community. Individualism during the Viking Age was not about personal , spiritual philosophy but rather how an individual could apply personal skills to the betterment of both family clan and community.

5. The land upon which a geographic community is built and supported is holy.

Note: Here the world ‘holy’ does not mean ‘sacred’ in the sense of the Catholic Eucharist, Bible, or Crucifix but rather retains its older meaning of ‘holy’ meaning ‘whole’ or ‘complete’. The land was not separate from its ‘owners.’

17 - Hall 1976.

Óðrœrir 15

6. Individuals seeking close, spiritual connection with gods was borrowed from Christianity a mil-lennia ago.18 A reciprocal relationship of gifting to and in return from gods is more appropriate.19

Working within and understanding the reconstructed heathen worldview does create very real differences in developing practice, tradition, and belief. The intention of such an approach is not and never has been to attempt to emulate heathen practice. I was recently posed a question concerning the heathen practice of blót. The question was based off of the observation that many modern Ásatrúar use what is called the “Hammer Rite” to initiate the ceremony. The person had observed that this action is not in any way based off of historical heathen tradition and is a modern construct. The observer then pointed out that there are more historical methods (such as cording off the blót space, or tracing it with fire) that can be employed to initiate a blót with, and wanted to know if these methods were being used by anyone. I responded by pointing out that it does not matter “how” you begin the ceremony if you don’t understand the intent and purpose of the historical (or modern) methods. If you cord off a blót space because that is what evidence shows may have been done historically, you are still only emulating actions and attaching modern rational to them if you do not understand the original context of “why”. The correct question should be “why did historical heathens begin blót the way they did. What was their goal? What was the purpose?” Investigating the heathen worldview would produce a different conclusion than what had been assumed previously. In this case, the purpose of an opening act in blót would not be to ‘hallow’ or ‘purify’ a space or to create a “space that is set apart from the world of man, where the presence of holy powers can be felt more strongly.’20 The purpose would be to establish a boundary that marks the physical limits of that sacral space; to declare the purpose of that event with rules and guidelines of proper and improper action within that marked area, and to declare who is and is not welcome. The gods would have been recognized as already being present within the confines of the community and not in some otherworldly spiritual place. From here and with this understanding, the reconstructionist is free to establish and develop any sort of action that is consistent with and which reinforces this mentality as opposed to imitating actions while reinterpreting them through a different cultural (in this case American Christian/New Age) lens. It is crucial to make a distinction between practice and worldview. The former arises from the latter. If you internalize the worldview of the pre-Christian Germanic peoples (which starts with understanding it), then the practices which rise from that worldview, while not identical to theirs, will be consistent with theirs.

While approaching heathenry through the reconstructionist method can be very difficult at times; it is necessary for any and all researchers into heathen religion, regardless of whether or not they are a practicing heathen. For an individual trying to revive heathen religion, it is not only necessary, but it should be embraced. Each new discovery leads to questions about how and if it effects the researcher’s worldview and understanding of the very religion they are a part of. We spend our lifetime honing, developing, and growing out from that worldview of the ancient heathen while realizing more and more every day just how compatible that worldview truly is with the modern world. Reconstructionism is not a sect or a branch of heathenism. It is an approach. Through it, heathenry as it is known in America and Europe has been and will only continue to develop and thrive as a consistent rekindling of the ancient heathen religion.

18 - I have altered Linzie’s original argument that praying directly to the gods was borrowed from Christianity. There is evidence that indi-viduals did pray to the gods, through the observations of the Rus asking for good trade, etc. The nature of the heathen relationship with gods and that of the Christian relationship with God however is very different. I have changed the statement to reflect that.

19 - Linzie 2004.20 - The quote was taken from one of the most popularly owned and read books regarding Asatru in the United States. Our Troth, Second

Edition, Vol 2, 2007, The Troth

Óðrœrir 16

Bibliography

Gundarsson, Kvedulf ed. Living The Troth. Our Troth:Second Edition. Volume 2. North Charleston: BookSurge Publishing. 2007.

Hall, T. Edward. Beyond Culture, New York: Anchor Books. 1976

Kulasundari, Devi. “Hinduism, Indo-Paganism, and Cultural Appropriation”. The Wild Hunt. Patheos.com. 22-06-2010. Web. 20 Jul 2011.

Linzie, Bil. “Germanic Spirituality”. 2003, <http://www.angelfire.com/nm/seidhman>.

Linzie, Bil. “Reconstructionism’s Role in Modern Heathenry”. 2007, <http://www.angelfire.com/nm/seidhman>.

Linzie, Bil. “Uncovering the Effects of Cultural Background on the Reconstruction of Ancient Worldviews” 2004, <http://www.angelfire.com/nm/seidhman>.

Metcalf, Barbara, and Thomas Metcalf. A Concise History of Modern India. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2001.

Mirriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11. Springfield: Mirriam Webster Inc. 2003.

Murphy, G. Ronald,The Heliand: The Saxon Gospel. New York, Oxford University Press. 1992.

Russell, C. James. The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press. 1994.

Simek, Rudolf. Die Religion und Mythologie der Germanen. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Germany). 2003.

Simek, Rudolf. “The Vanir, an Obituary:” Retrospective Methods Network Newsletter. Dec (2010): 10-18. Web. 17 Jul 2011.

Óðrœrir 17

Many times the fictitious tales of the sagas conflict with the surviving legal codes and archaeological evidence giving us a hazy picture of reality for women in historical heathenry. This does not mean we put away the stories of heroic women and erase them from our lore. Just because there is a conflict between the sagas, legal codes and archaeological evidence does not mean we ignore the literature. None of this should imply that women like those in the stories did not exist, because they very likely did. We just have to keep in mind that “well behaved women seldom make history”1 which means we have been left little evidence of the ones who followed the rules. In the Reconstructionist approach to heathenry if we do not attempt to look at multiple sources in history, we are creating gaps in knowledge that may not exist. In order to gain a full understanding of why our ancestors practiced things in the manner that they did, then we must examine the guts as well as the glory, especially in a subject that is vaguely scrawled across the pages of the past like women’s roles. There is evidence of gender roles in ritual historically and without the examination of those rituals or the context in which we find them, then we are leaving gaps in meaning which defeats the purpose of what the movement is attempting to accomplish. We cannot confine ourselves to sagas and Eddas or we miss massive amounts of material lending us insight to marriage, birthing rights, daily roles, and gender roles that may or may not have affected the holy.

Expanding past the literature gives us a wider insight into daily realities. While some of those realities are hard to stomach by modern heathens, they are realities all the same. One of those realities is, in some ways, Christianity did bring what would modernly be labeled as freedoms to the North that did not exist before. In Norway and Iceland a woman did not have a voice in her marriage. It was arranged by her father and the bridegroom and his family and indeed she may never lay eyes on him until their wedding day.2 Christianity brought the right, and indeed demanded the brides consent, or more specifically the absence of “no”, in order for a marriage to take place.3 There was also no minimum age to marry and we can see an example of this in the Grágás as to the special provisions granted for women widowed and engaged under the age of sixteen. Women were defined by their marital status as maiden, wife or widow opposed to men who had no status designated to them through marriage or lack of.4 To dismiss this as irrelevant is to deny basic household dynamics and division of power that dictated rituals, such as the right to the life of a child and the naming of those that survived.

By combining the literature with the legal codes we can get a bigger picture of the “right to life” which in turn, lets us piece together assumptions of naming rituals. Gleis outlines the ritual of leaving the child on the floor until the father picks up the child, acknowledges it as his own, and names it.5 Unless he does,

1 - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich in regards to Puritan funeral practices.2 - Jenny Jochens, Women in Old Norse Society (1991) page 17 supported with sagas and legal code analysis3 - This is a place where the sagas and literary sources deviate with legal codes and surviving correspondences between missionaries and

bishops. In the Older Borgarthing Christian Law, if a woman says no than the marriage cannot go forward and specifically states if she remains silent that is to be seen as consent. Looking at the evolution of older codes versus the new ones we can see where the accepted practices in marriage evolved with Christianity and away from pagan ideals. See Jochens chapter 2 in which she discusses marriage practice in detail

4 - Theodore John Rivers, “Widows Rights in Anglo-Saxon Law” The American Journal of Legal History (1930) 5 - Paul Gleis, “Teutonic Families”. Jochens also examines in detail the cross referencing of literary material and legal codes to rebuild the

Women in Heathenry What we Find Beyond the Literature

•By Jill Budynas

Óðrœrir 18

the child will be exposed, taking the right to choose a child’s life from the woman. Norwegian law states that every child must have a father and both Norwegian and Icelandic law allowed for the “torture”6 of a pregnant woman in order to gain the name of the father or demanding the name from the door while the woman was in labor.7 Working under the fair and supported assumption that the church did not outlaw most practices that did not go directly against early Christian doctrine and our knowledge of early Christian doctrine, we have a good idea of what was pagan practice and what was Christian influenced.8 What the church attempted to take over was the right to decide life, not the father, which in the end changed very little in how they practiced their births.9 By accepting the roles and rights of women, we have a fair understanding to an important rite of passage; a name.

None of this is to say that women had no rights or were utterly passive. The Norse, Iceland and the Anglo-Saxon10 clung to their right to divorce so fiercely that the church stopped trying to abolish it and simply tried to control it. The legal codes are peppered with detailed inheritance and divorce laws outlining what a woman held the right to as her own. For example in the laws of Aethelbert in Anglo-Saxon law, a woman could leave with child and still maintain half of the property. In the sagas we can see where women maintained their entire dowry, giving us an instance where the sagas match up with believable reality. A woman could not complete her divorce without a man, as she could not speak at Thing, but she could initiate one with nothing more than a witness before the era of the church came into play and not much more even after the church took up supervision of divorce. The Grágás outline the many reasons that a person could get a divorce, making it still relatively easy to obtain and the ability for a woman to take her property with her and back to her family made it a viable threat.

What we have is undeniable evidence that shows women were considered socially unequal by our terms, but that did not mean that they were not extremely liberated compared to the Greeks and Romans or that they held no sense of balance at all. What we would consider a gender divide in labor, our ancestors did not, again supporting the importance of context. For example, in a Denmark cemetery of 320 graves, 85 were male, 73 were females and 162 could not be determined, through bones or grave goods.11 What they found was that there were a higher percentage of objects such as weapons and riding equipment in male graves and arm rings and spindle whorls in woman’s graves12 but that does not mean that all named objects were not found in the both male and female graves, only in a higher percentage of a specific item for a specific gender. For example, cooking equipment was found in both male and female, but in 26% of female graves opposed to 16% in male and agricultural equipment was found in 50% of female graves opposed to 36% of male though there was a difference in the specific type of equipment per gender.13

ritual surrounding ritualistic naming even outside of the introduction of Christianity.6 - pina hana in the Icelandic, translation Jochens7 - The name would be demanded from the door while she was in labor and if the name was audible to those near or at the door the child

was named as a “half father” and was responsible for the financial aspects until a month after birth. If she failed to rename the father then the child was placed in slavery and fines were paid to the king according to Norwegian laws. In Icelandic laws, the woman not only had to name the father but where they met and when the child was conceived.

8 - There are many places in the legal codes where the order to not do something is very telling of what was done before the decree and in some instances it is declared pagan outright.

9 - Through years of attempting to ban the practice of infant exposure, the church instead made rules surrounding it. While the church de-manded a child live, it was only long enough to be baptized at the church and then buried alive “until it is dead” as well as several other grim practices toward unwanted children as seen in the Norwegian laws.

10 - The Anglo-Saxons are mentioned sparingly in this essay for several reasons. The Anglo-Saxon’s converted nearly 400 years before the Norse and Icelandic and the analysis of Christian influence on these laws would take more than the scope of this essay allows. They should not be ignored as a viable part of heathen studies, but deserve a more detailed examination than available here.

11 - Judith Jesch Women in the Viking Age (1991) page 1312 - Ibid page 1413 - Ibid. page 20-21

Óðrœrir 19

Women were also found buried with weights and balances, a strong indicator that women were allowed to participate in trade.14 Women were also able to own and sell property in some cases. She was also allowed to inherit property, and according to the Grágás inheritance section could come directly into her inheritance, even before the age of 16 which was the legal age for a male. Generally women were married and their husband gained control of that property, or her male guardian, but she maintained ownership of it.15 While none of this remotely supports modern equality, it does not support total submission either. There are some realms that belonged to women alone such as cup bearing in liquor rituals 16 and incitement or whetting.17 When we look at the sources on these topics we can see a clear formula for these rituals and the fact that it was left solely to women to fulfill these roles in a socio-religious context that seems to be largely ignored in heathenry.

It is not that there is no value in the literature because that would be blatantly untrue and damaging. That is only to say that it cannot and should not be taken at face value. These amazing examples of poetry and lore were not meant to be historical documents, but as pieces of art and entertainment with small glimpses into the world the writer wished to convey. These are stories of heroes and nobility, which is not reflected in or representative of the common man or in real life. The literature plies us with stories of queens, warriors, and valkyries of incredible worth and power that ruled the world in glory and fame; however when we examine the literature alone, we miss vital pieces to the puzzle that has been left to us. The high ratio of men to women in the literature gives us an even smaller window to view women in historical heathenry and that is before we pick apart the heavy Christian influence and additions. That is not to say we do not have a great deal of material to learn from, including the literary sources. It only says that in order to gain a real grasp on our ancestral sisters we must broaden our scope significantly in order to see the dynamics that influenced rituals and rights of women in historical heathenry and in turn can get a better grasp on ritual and life itself.

14 - Ibid page 2115 - Most ideas of what women were and were not allowed to own can be gleaned by both the legal codes on inheritance, marriage, and

surviving wills across the Norwegian, Anglo-Saxon, Frisian and Icelandic. 16 - Micheal Enright Lady With a Mead Cup (1996)17 - Carol Clover “Hildigunnr’s Lament” Cold Counsel: Women in Old Norse Literature and Mythology (2002)

Óðrœrir 20

Bibliography

Enright, Michael. Lady With a Mead Cup, Portland: Four Courts Press, 1996

Clover, Carol. “Hildigunnr’s Lament” Cold Counsel: Women in Old Norse Literature and Mythology, 2002

Jesch, Judith. Women in the Viking Age. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1991

Jochens, Jenny. Women in Old Norse Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995

Rivers, Theodore John. “Widows’ Rights in Anglo-Saxon Law.” The American Journal of Legal History 19, 1975

Óðrœrir 21

The purpose of this article is to take a brief look at the idea of animal imagery as a representation of and a connection to the Otherworld. During the 5th to 7th centuries the Germanic settlers of England produced a large amount of artwork depicting animals and mythic beasts, these pieces give us an insight to our ancestors’ understanding of the world around them and their religious or superstitious beliefs. Looking at Old English literature for this information is also useful but has its pitfalls due to translation and the agenda of the author (especially with literature dealing with the Migration period as all records were written during the Christian period), however artwork cannot be changed over the years as it is physically the same now as it was when it was created, with the exception of the damage that it naturally accrues over time.

Understanding Anglo-Saxon artwork is not a simple task; what you see at first sight is almost certainly not what you see on closer inspection, this is not only a continuation of the Old English love of riddles but also a reflection of how the Unseen hide around every corner and share our space. The artwork of the period can be seen in three broad groups; anthromorphic/zoomorphic (designs featuring humans/humanoids and animals/creatures), geometric (abstract shapes, knots, ring-dots, fylfots etc) and pictorial (realistic representations); these terms should not be confused with style or chronological groupings such as Salin’s style groups. For the purposes of this introduction to Anglian animal art and its symbolic meaning I will focus mainly on representations of animals and birds, specifically those depictions carried into battle by the Anglian warriors.

The use of animals as totemic protection is clear from an examination of the four complete helmets found in England. All four helmets are Anglian which is useful as there is no confusion from Saxon or Jutish cultures, they are; Sutton Hoo from Suffolk (East Anglia), Wollaston Pioneer from Northamptonshire (Middle Anglia/Mercia), Benty Grange from Derbyshire (Mercia) and Coppergate from York (Northumbria)1. Only the Coppergate helmet falls outside of the Heathen period but it should not be removed from this study as it shares characteristics with the earlier types. The animals connected to helmets are boars and dragons, these will be dealt with separately.

Eofor-lic scionon ofer hleor-bergan(Boar shapes shone over cheek guards)

[Beowulf 303-304]

The boar in Norse lore an animal with close connections to Freyr (and thus by inference the Anglian Ingwe or Ing) a god regarded by many modern Heathens as solely a fertility god yet here in the Anglian Ing(we) we find his full warrior nature, he is the “warrior defender” who not only gives life but actively protects life. Ing according to the Old English Rune Poem is a hero who travels by wagon. The last line of the verse “ðus heardingas ðone hæle nemdum” translates as “thus heroes (or hard men) named the hero” suggesting that Ing is the hero of heroes.

The two most obvious boars in the corpus are on the Benty Grange and the Wollaston helmets; both

1 - Pollington 2001, p155

Some Animal Imagery in Anglian Heathenry

•By John Wills

Óðrœrir 22

these have boar crests or figurines which are fitted directly to the front to back band at the apex of the dome. Another boar figurine exists from Guilden Morden, Cambridgeshire (East Anglia)2, it was found in 1864 but there is no associated helmet even though the figurine itself does have fixing rivets on its feet matching both Wollaston and Benty Grange. Less obvious boars are found on the Sutton Hoo helmet which for this reason requires special attention, see below. The Coppergate helmet reflects this protective motif in a less direct way through a script written along the “wala” or crest band, this time from a Christian perspective yet with echoes of the Lord Ing. The script reads “IN. NOMINE. DNI. NOSTRI IHV. SCS. SPS. D. ET. OMNIBUS DECEMUS. AMEN. OSHERE. XPI. “in the name of our Lord Jesus, the Holy Spirit, God and all, we pray. Amen. Oshere. Christ” (trans. Pollington 2001). It can be argued that the defender “Ingwe-Frea”, Lord Ing, (Yngvi-Freyr of the Norse) has been replaced with the saviour Lord Christ to achieve the same protective powers for the wearer of the helmet.

Gullinbursti, the boar given to Freyr in Norse lore3, has the ability to glow due its golden bristles4 which are represented in the Anglian depictions. The Benty Grange figurine is dotted with small gilded silver studs, hips and shoulders, there is also a groove running along its back which is believed to have once held real bristles. The eyes of the Benty Grange boar are garnets mounted with gilded silver filigree. The use of real bristles, silver and gemstones makes this boar figure very much like the description of Gullinbursti. The Guilden Morden boar is made of bronze and has a crest running across its back. On the Sutton Hoo helmet the boars have silver stripes and gilded heads. Only the Wollaston boar has no decoration resembling the Gullinbursti story however this matches the plain style of the whole helmet. In contrast to the bronze and silver boars of the other helmets the Wollaston boar is a single iron rod bent and split to form a very “modern” looking streamlined figure.

Benty Grange Guilden Morden

Wollaston Reconstruction of Wollaston head

2 - Underwood 1999, p1023 - Simek 1993, p1224 - Ibid.

Óðrœrir 23

Sutton Hoo (one of the pair)

Fig. 1 Corpus of Anglian “helmet” boars.

draca ricsian, se ðe on heaum hofe hord beweotode(Dragon ruled, which in high hall treasure watched)

[Beowulf 2211-2212]

Dragons are the enemy of warriors and the downfall of Beowulf but are apparent in the iconography of helmets too. The dragon Fafnir from pan-Germanic lore was once a dwarf but became a dragon after donning a magical helmet and being consumed with greed. The dragon in Beowulf mirrors Fafnir also being consumed by greed, the dragon enters the poem directly after the death of the last survivor and it is not unlikely that the early medieval audience understood this as the warrior becoming a dragon to guard his people’s treasure in the barrow mound, the mead-hall of the dead. Both Beowulf’s dragon and Fafnir are guardians, protectors of a mound and its treasure. The dragons found on helmets are guarding the “mound” of the helmet as the two examples lay over the front to back ridge, these examples are Sutton Hoo and Coppergate. The Coppergate has two additional dragons; one arching over each eye, the Sutton Hoo has a second dragon hidden within its design. Within the Staffordshire Hoard are a number of items which have been identified as ridge terminals and that are in the form of dragon heads.

Between the clear figurative art such as the Wollaston boar and the complex twists and turns of classic Anglo-Saxon zoomorphic artwork is the Sutton Hoo helmet which contains the boar and dragon examined above in both clear and hidden form. Much of the Sutton Hoo helmet iconography is bound together in a visual riddle which on first glance appears to be a human face. From front to back lays a dragon which looks down onto the face, this is a double headed protecting the wearer from the front and rear. Looking up from the face is another head. This head, the human nose, the moustache and the eyebrows form a bird flying up to meet the crest dragon, or maybe a dragon in flight. If we remove the moustache and eyebrows we find another dragon or wyrm matching the longer ridge creature. An examination of the eyebrows reveals they terminate in the heads of boars the eyebrows themselves are glittering boars with silver bristles looking out to the sides of the wearer’s head. These two defensive boars over the eyes are echoed as dragons in the later Christian Coppergate helmet. The final piece of the riddle are the garnets beneath the boar eyebrows, on one eye they have a reflective foil backing on the other eye they do not making one eye shine brightly while the other remains dull. Here we have a face of a man which is a bird flying upwards containing the boar of Ing, the dragon defenders of barrows and in the right light is shows the face of the ultimate warrior god on the battlefield, Woden.

Óðrœrir 24

The Face The Bird orWinged Dragon

The Boars The Dragonsor Wyrms

Fig 2. Imagery contained in the Sutton Hoo helmet “face”.

The examination of the protective symbolism on protective head gear of the Anglian Heathen people illustrates an interesting point; Woden is only present in the very highest status armour and then not prominently. When an Anglian Heathen warrior went to war he put his trust in the mythical dragon and Ing which is quite different to the modern idea “Odin’s warriors”.

Moving away from helmets the most common protective tool of the Anglian warrior was his shield, this was often highly decorated with metal mounts and a disc on the boss some in excess of two inches in diameter. Härke’s typography (rationalised by Dickinson)5 is very useful in understanding this imagery:

Type Descriptioni Aquatic Creaturesia single-surface fish, mainly resembling pikeib aquatic creatures, symmetrical and/or mutli-surfaceii Predatory Birdsiia single-surface predatory birdiib bichrome predatory birdsiic composite birdiii Dragonsiv Quadrupedsv Symmetricalvi Cruciformvii Discoid (including geometric designs)

Again, as with the helmets, we do not find ravens or wolves which would normally in modern thinking be associated with Woden, shields also do not carry boars associated with Ing which are found on every Heathen period helmet in England. The vast majority of shield mounts are either fish (pike) or eagles; creatures more usually associated with dwarves and giants however this would be the wrong interpretation. A much better explanation is given by understanding the politics of the time and what was trying to be achieved by the men carrying these shields. The Angles, and accompanying Saxons and Jutes, were systematically replacing the Roman military order with their own rule which gives a good clue as to why the eagle was used, Dickinson says:

The consistently and clearly hooked beaks identify all these birds as raptors not scavengers like ravens (which have a thickened, flat-topped beak). Some have argued that they are hawks or falcons, but an eagle is more plausible, given its pre-eminence in nature and role as the symbol of Roman power, which undoubtedly influenced post-Roman iconography, within and without the Empire, as a metaphor for celestially-derived qualities and earthly power. Nonetheless, the range of possible iconographic meanings is wide.6

5 - Dickinson, 2005 pp127-1386 - Dickinson 2005, p158

Óðrœrir 25

In Scandinavian and Icelandic lore Oðinn can and does take the form of an eagle, it is the goddesses that have the “falcon cloak”; the eagle is also the favoured form of other powerful shamanic or sorcerer figures. It is an eagle at the top of Yggdrassil that sees all and warns the gods of danger. The eagle therefore is both a potent political symbol as well as an effective protective totem. Furthermore the raven, in the guise of a wælcyrige, is the bringer of doom and death, the collector of the fallen. Eagles are active killers and when displayed with dragons and the predatory creatures from under the water (the pike like creatures of Type i) they give a message to the enemy that death is near. Looking at the imagery through the eyes of the ancestors, not the modern lens of interpreted lore, gives a much more sinister and potent meaning to these thirty inch diameter linden boards and importantly removes any notions of the user turning to giants for assistance.

The magnificent Sutton Hoo shield displays on the front both a dragon and a huge eagle, looking closely at the eagle you find in the garnets on the bird’s thigh a human face, possibly Woden taken on eagle form. On the reverse the stringer and handle also displays animal imagery. The stringer terminates at both ends with dragon heads matching the helmet. At either side of dragon heads short arms project ending in boar heads, behind these longer arms stretch out ending in eagle heads; all of these are gilded. This combination of defensive and offensive creatures should be seen as a sign of battle strength and magical protection as well as royal majesty.

At the centre of every shield is the boss, these were not the plain domes of the Viking age, most were the complex carinated shape ending a disc or button, some latter examples were conical or sugarloaf shaped without the terminating disc7. The disc was not devoid of decoration, many display the most complex designs found from all shield fittings. Generally the pattern described is one of zoomporhic disjointed beasts or beast men, some back biting, others spiralling or crouching. These creatures can be seen as representations of the otherworld, creatures that no living man would wish to encounter. An impressive disc was found at Barton Seagrave in Northamptonshire (Middle Anglian/Mercian) which depicts seven different beasts writhing around in a circle; these beasts have bird, fish and mammal heads, hands, feet and claws, there are tails and wings mixed together which when quickly viewed give the impression of human body parts. The disc measures 50mm diameter by 2.5mm deep and is finished in gold. Again the Sutton Hoo shield boss is special; it is fitted with ten dragon heads, five radiating out from the boss disc and five facing in from the boss rim.

7 - Härke & Dickinson 1992, p23

Óðrœrir 26

Alternative reading of beasts 2 & 7 creating a one-eyed human face

crossed by a raven over an eagle.

Fig 3. Barton Seagrave shield boss disc zoomorphic beasts (after Dickinson)

One more example of animal imagery is of interest to this brief overview and is again from Sutton Hoo. The shoulder clasps that accompany the helmet and shield both display boars, these garnet boars are in pairs facing away from each other and overlapping. Where the boars overlap the shoulders are filled with blue and black glass that give the impression of bee’s wings however the front legs finish off the insect shape into a butterfly; this interpretation is backed up by the triangular garnet and copper-alloy buckle from Sutton Hoo mound 17 which depicts a horses head with a more obvious butterfly motif in the centre. The boar images on the shoulder clasp can be understood in the same way as the helmet boar crests, but on first sight this insect images falls outside of this male dominated world of war. As these designs sat on the warrior’s shoulders it is possible that the butterfly shape was a talismanic device to encourage his arms to move lightly and freely in the manner of a butterfly. It is equally possible that we should focus only on the blue bee’s wings and here we find a direct representation of the wælcyrige, however this image is not the carrion picking chooser of the slain but a battle ready fighter. In Metrical Charm 8: For a Swarm of Bees the bee is called “sigewif”, a victorious woman, which can be understood as an analogy for a wælcyrige. This connection between the bee and the wælcyrige shows her not as the reactive hag walking through a field of corpses as does the raven; here she is a proactive killer striking down her enemies with her “sting” and sat on the warrior’s shoulder she can guide his spear arm.

This brief examination of the animal symbolism of armour gives definite signs of the Anglian warrior’s religious beliefs and the magic he wished to carry into battle. His helmet was a symbolic barrow under which was protected his treasure, his life, wrapped with dragons and watched over by the warrior defender god Lord Ingwe. His shield was both defensive and offensive, it carried a symbolic message of impending doom to those who faced it, and its holder brought with him command of the monsters of water with the aid of warrior magician Woden.

Óðrœrir 27

Suggested places to visit:

British Museum, London, England – Sutton Hoo helmet and shieldhttp://www.britishmuseum.org/

Royal Amouries Museum, Leeds, England – Wollaston helmethttp://www.royalarmouries.org/

Sutton Hoo, Suffolk, England – burial ground with reconstruction of the ship burialhttp://www.suttonhoo.org/

Weston Park Museum, Sheffield, England – Benty Grange helmethttp://www.museums-sheffield.org.uk/coresite/html/WPM.asp

Yorkshire Museum and Gardens, York, England – Coppergate helmethttp://www.yorkshiremuseum.org.uk

Illustrations copyright John Wills 2011

Óðrœrir 28

Bibliography

Dickinson, T; “Symbols of Protection: The Significance of Animal-ornamented Shields in Early Anglo- Saxon England” in Medieval Archaeology 49 (1) pp109-163, 2005

Foster, J; “Notes and News” in Medieval Archaeology 21 pp166-167, 1977

Härke, H and Dickinson, T; Early Anglo-Saxon Shields, 1992, Society of Antiquities of London, London.

Meadows, I; An Anglian Warrior Burial from Wollaston, Northamptonshire, 2004, Northants Archaeology, Northampton

Page, R. I.; An Introduction to English Runes, 1999, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge

Pollington, S; Anglo-Saxon Burial Mounds, 2008, Anglo-Saxon Books, Swaffham - The English Warrior, 2001, Anglo-Saxon Books, Hockwood-cum-Wilton - Wayland’s Work, 2010, Anglo-Saxon Books, Swaffham

Simek, R.; Dictionary of Northern Mythology, 1993, D. S. Brewer, Cambridge

Underwood, R; Anglo-Saxon Weapons and Warfare, 2001, Tempus Publishing Ltd, Stroud

Anonymous; Beowulf (quoted lines translated by J Wills) - Metrical Charm 8: For a Swarm of Bees - Old English Rune Poem (quoted lines translated by J Wills)

Óðrœrir 29

Who were the Franks and what were their pre-Christian roots? This is a question that has caused confusion and headache among those searching for the answers. Even the origin of their name has been hotly debated, although the generally accepted origin of frank is found in the Germanic root *fr-k, which relates this word intimately to the Old English frec, Old High German freh and New High German frech as well as the Old Saxon frôcni ‘audax, protervus, procax.’ 1 This etymological connection leads us to speculate that by some austere quality of their constitution, they came to be known to others as the “bold, forward and wanton.”2 As a modern heathen reconstructionist with primarily French (Burgundian, Norman and Belgian) ancestry, it has been my explicit goal to reconstruct the worldview of this motley confederation of Germanic and Celtic tribes to better understand how they reckoned the world around them and what form their relationship with the holy powers may have taken.

It is not sufficient, in my opinion, to simply raise a toast to Merovech and call myself a ‘modern Frank’. There are plenty of heathens today who take up the name and identity of a particular cultural group without putting the effort into understanding, through research and experimentation, the worldview of those they have chosen to emulate. I have also heard the argument, “We don’t have enough information on them so we do it our way.” This is not, however, a factual representation of what we do have on the subject; despite popular belief the Franks have left us many, many clues into their lives. These may not be to the extent of the Scandinavian sources of the same periods, but what we do have in the form of archaeology, historical texts and comparative etymology is worthy of note.

The Franks, ca. 471, were not a homogenous Germanic tribe but rather a confederation of no less than eleven groups, two of which are greatly suspected of being of Celtic or of a celticized origin: the Tencteri and Usipetes. This is based upon the linguistics of both these tribe’s names: Usipete translates as Celtic for ‘well-horsed’3 and Tenctari may be related to the Old Irish téchtae ‘proper, right’4 and early Welsh ‘rightful, entitlement(s).’ 5 By Julius Caesar’s account these two tribes were by their very nature agriculturists and occupied a region which was among the Ubii who ‘were accustomed to Gaulish manners.’6 Caesar also states in Bello Gallico that Germans are not ‘studious of agriculture.’7 One could therefore conclude that due to the Usipetes and Tenctari’s non-Germanic custom of farming and their tribal names, they were truly Celts or of a Celtic nature. However A.C. Murray takes the position that such distinctions between the ‘German’ and ‘Celt’ were largely fabricated upon political agenda and information from the likes Ariovistus’ soldiers and that the trans-Rhenish cultures were fairly homogenized late La Tène8. From the moment Clovis I conquered the vastness of Neustria and Aquitaine, the Franks were an ethnic blend of West

1 - Hessel, J.H. Kern, H. Lex Salica: Murray, London 1880 p. 5602 - (Hk)… p.560, trans. ‘audax, protervus, procax’3 - Green, Miranda J. The Celtic World: Routledge, New York 2006 P. 6804 - Kortland, Frederik Herman Henri. Italo-Celtic Origins and Prehistoric Developments of the Irish Language: p. 1285 - Koch, John T. Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia V. 1: ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara 2006 p. 13626 - Green…p. 6807 - Tacitus, Cornelius. Germany and Agricola of Tacitus. P. 1028 - Murray, A.C.Germanic Kinship Structure: PIMS Toronto 1983 p.45-6

Frankish Heathenry An Overview

•Erik Lacharity

Óðrœrir 30

Frankish Germanic tribes, as well as Celts.9 It is for this very reason that any serious Frankish enthusiast must accept that much of what defined this people was influenced by this Franco-Gallo-Roman admixture. To deny this is illogical, as it is highly improbable to untangle what we now label as “Germanic” from the “Celtic” concerning this folk. Furthermore, there is much evidence that particularities of their law codes found analogues in Roman tradition. This is not surprising as their confederation dates to as early as the 3rd century and that at various times the tribes that made up their numbers were Roman foederati. Some reconstructionists would attempt to try and sift through the whole of the Frankish people to remove what is wholly Germanic and elevated above other ‘impurities’. Yet to do so would be akin to trying to reconstruct the Canadian choosing to focus on only English customs at the expense of any other influences that have shaped this identity, such as the Native American and French folk roots. It is best to retain the character of the Frank for what he was: a cultural melting pot of Germanic hereditary law and Roman influenced proprietary law10.

There has always been, from observation, an unfavorable view of the Franks by modern heathens today. This seems to stem from two underlying factors. The first is the disdain for anything related to Charlemagne, due to his conquest and forcible conversion of other heathen peoples nearer and dearer to the modern Anglosphere, namely the subjugation of the Saxons, finalized in 803.11 Secondly, the majority of modern North American heathens are of English speaking or other Germanic descent, or they have entered the Anglosphere through assimilation and any roots leading to France or any “Romance” peoples is largely undesirable. There was a time in the past decades, when modern heathens were clamoring about hypothetical “Norse roots” to justify their interest in heathenry. In time this gave way to an acceptance of more Continental heathen worldviews, but that of the Franks has been largely untapped, as can be evinced by the lack of modern pagan websites and/or organizations in France dedicated to their understanding. Most of these websites are dedicated to l’Asatru and les Peuples du Nords. None dedicate their heathen efforts to the Germanic peoples of their own ancient past, as a quick google.fr search will show. Hopefully with a better understanding of who the Franks were and a critical, deep and unbiased look into the extant vestiges of their pre-Christian roots, more modern heathens will take up this endeavor. I sincerely hope that this interest is sparked among the modern Francosphere, as their history books have sold them short on the Frankish branch of their ethnic tree in preference of a highly romanticized and mythic portrait of the noble gaulois as the progenitors of the French people. 12 13 In the words of Augustin Thierry, “This period [Merovingian] is that which we most gladly abridge, which we push aside without any scruples…their shocking savagery, the mores of these destroyers of Rome, their barbarous and bizarre aspects are how we have come to paint them”.14 This sentiment has found detractors for the most part only in Québec, where Reconstructionists are turning the tide. It must be stated that a modern þéodisc practice as well as heathen Reconstructionist philosophy has taken many decades to evolve in North America and hopefully the same will transpire among the French.

The law of the Franks after the conquests of Clovis remained largely Germanic with a substantial subset of Roman influences and it is through this law code, the Lex Salica or more properly the Malberg (forum), that we find the most pertinent information concerning the relationships between Franks, Gallo-Romans and their classes as well as with the world around them. Thanks to the widely cited and quite

9 - Falk, Avner. Saracens and Franks: Karnak: London, 2010 p. 5910 - Murry…see vicini11 - McKitterick, Rosamond. Charlemange: The Formation of a European Identity. Cambridge UP 2008 p. 25512 - Brown, Terence. Celticism. Radopi B.V., Georgia 1996 P. 17113 - Falk, Avner. Saracens and Franks. Karnak: London, 201014 - Thierry, Augustin. Récits des Temps Mérovégiens V.1. p. 4

Óðrœrir 31

unattested etymological work of Hendrik Kern,15 who dutifully researched the etymology of ten collected manuscripts of the law code by J.H. Hessel, we may extrapolate further knowledge from these reconstructed Old Frankish words and definitions. The ability to do so means that we, as Reconstructionists, may use comparative sources from other neighboring tribes and their linguistic similarities for reshaping a long gone or forgotten worldview in as much detail as our research may afford. Obviously the first step in reconstructing a Frankish worldview is to sift through the many clues found in their gravesites, such as that of Childeric I and other archaeological artifacts. What to accept as a plausibly Frankish artifact and where to look for such a thing is also highly important. Authenticity must be determined by the presence of a historically recognized population centre or trade route such as those in ancient Austrasia, Neustria, Aquitaine, Swabia (ca 481-507) and to a lesser degree Burgundy (ca 534) though keeping in mind that this last one was largely Burgundian territory16 prior to Frankish rule. The linguistic record may enjoy greater liberty in the comparison of a reconstructed vocabulary with other closely related tribes, most notably the Anglo-Saxons via the Saxon, Angle and Jutish migration routes, through territories occupied by tribes making up the Frankish confederacy. It is also possible that elements of their language were exchanged through the well developed trade route with Kent or that at this time their early Germanic tongues had no real differences to speak of. It is known that the strong kinsmen relationship between the courts of Kent and Neustria through intermarriage and possible Frankish overlordship allowed for a constant exchange of goods and artistic styles from Francia to the British Isle,17 leading to a need for mutual intelligibility on a merchant level.

Although the Franks officially became Christian via the baptism of their king Clovis I in 496, I seriously doubt the piety and monotheism of the early Frankish Church, as the coveting of relics and pilgrimages to cult centers of various local saints betrays in them a truly polytheistic worldview. Such practices however were widespread across Europe at the time and not isolated to Merovingian Gaul. The many cults of the saints can at times be tied to ancient pagan (Germanic, Celtic and Roman) cult sites being re-appropriated under a thin veneer of Catholicism.18 Even throughout the Carolingian rule of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, the exchange between Rome and Francia did not solidify the position and integrity of the Church’s canon. More often than not, Christian theological doctrine had to be reshaped by their indigenous culture so as to be palatable and easily digested by the lower class Franks.19 If this was so true for the eighth century Catholic Church under such a staunch Catholic as Charlemagne, it is hard to imagine what form the earliest Frankish Christian worldview took. It may have been no more than the common Frank or their kings putting most of their eggs in the basket of Christ, for power and glory over pious supplication. According to the writings of Nicetius of Trier and Gregory of Tours, Clovis was enamored with the cult and power of St. Martin of Tours, and tales of miracles purportedly performed by the saint aided in his decision to convert. So, the very center of early Frankish Christianity was worship of the relics of saints, which helped the new cult gain wide acceptance20 throughout the realm(s) to the benefit of the nobility at times more than to the Church itself.

According to Camille Jullian, the French historian and archaeologist, the relics coming in to Rouen led the population to believe that they had in their presence the actual power of the saints to heal the sick in a physical tangible form.21 It is this need for a physical concentration of holy power which leads me to

15 - Hessel (1880)16 - Townsend, George Henry. Manual of Dates. Warne, London 1877 P. 17217 - Yorke, Barbara. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. B.A. Seaby, London,1990 p. 2618 - Nolan, Mary Lee & Sidney. Christian Pilgrimage in Modern Western Europe. North Carolina UP, N. Carolina p. 33119 - Claussen, Martin A. The Reform of the Frankish Church. Cambridge UP, New York 2004 p. 720 - Hillgarth, J.N. Christianity and Paganism, 350-750: The Conversion of Western Europe. Pennsylvania UP, 1986 p. 1921 - Claussen. pg. 19

Óðrœrir 32

conclude that much of this practice was a common holdover from their pagan roots. However, just where these pagan roots lead is a rather unanswerable question as the Germans, Celts and Romans all shared some form of holy adoration of sacred implements and localities. It is not impossible, though highly controversial, to consider evidence of a Frankish adoration of relics as a heathen attribute. In Kern’s work on Old Frankish, he notes that in the Lex Emendata there is reference to the word basilica; however, there is nothing decidedly Christian about the description “domus in modum basilicae factus super hominem mortuum” which translated is “a basilica in the shape of a dome built over a dead man”. Kern compares this idea to the word stûpa ‘tope’ or caitya in Sanskrit with the meaning of ‘that which is worthy to be gazed upon.’22 It may be a stretch to make such a comparison, but the fact that this word basilica has been used to designate a reliquary or perhaps a grave mound brings to mind the idea of the king’s mound or cenotaph, which held cultic appeal among the Anglo-Saxon folk.23 This is further demonstrated by the Germanic root *stupa, which finds its modern English descendent in ‘stub, stump.’24 So a further understanding of basilica in this context can be ‘a protruding mount (dome) which covers the remains of a dead man’. If we compare this to the Norse cults of the mound as related to the king,25 we can see a similarity in the halig of the dead heathen king and the sacer of the early Christian saint’s relics which received a wide cult status and were looked to as a source of health and betterment to the folk. Kern also sheds some light on the etymology of *chreoburgio, which he derives from a misinterpreted and wrongly transcribed chreobardio.26 It is clearly a compound of two words which find their related forms in the OE hlæw, OS hlēwe ‘grave, burial mound’27 and OF burgisli, OE byrgen ‘sepulcrum’. He then puts forward the definition of ‘tumulus over the bones of a dead man.’28 This could lead to the conclusion that the basilica referred to in the Salic law is ‘mound built over a dead man’s bones which is worthy to gaze upon’. At this point in time, such conclusions are but mere speculation and require further research to determine such a possible link if one may be found. Given the sufficient references to grave mounts among the Franks and how such mounds were regarded among other Germanic peoples at the time, with honor, such a practice of grave mound cultic activities may well have been common place and may have aided in the eventual adoption of reliquary cult practices.

The many Chanson de Geste or Songs of Heroic Feats of the French Middle Age, written by courtly poets known as troubadours, leave us with information on such notable late Frankish characters as Rolland, Ogier, and Galan29 (Völund). These tales were the French answer to the Norse saga, as these poets’ craft filled a similar function to the skalds. This is proven by acts of the Matter of France being adapted to the Norse Karlamagnús saga for King Haakon V of Norway.30 Some of the key heroic figures contained within the many tales are proof of the high popularity of Northern European heroic characters among the many royal courts. Rolland’s famed sword Durendal, ‘durable scimitar’ (ON Dyrumdali ‘precious valley’), contained in its hilt a tooth from St. Peter, blood of St. Basil, hair of St. Denis and a piece of Mary’s garment.31 In other versions stretching from Norway to Germany and beyond, relics and names are slightly different, taking on characteristics of the various peoples who perpetuated these tales. This does

22 - BRITTANICA Online.23 - Chaney, William A. The Cult of Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England. California UP, Berkley 1970 p. 9624 - Liberman, Anatoly. An Analytical Dictionary of English Etymology: Minnesota UP, Minneapolis 2008 p. 20225 - Davidson, Hilda Ellis. The Lost Beliefs of Northern Europe. Routledge, London 1993 p.10426 - (Hk)…p.lv27 - Lehmann, Winfred Phillip. Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Brill, Netherlands 1986 p.18628 - (Hk)…p.lv 29 - Longnon, Auguste, and Meyer, Paul. Raoul de Cambra. Meyer, Paris 1877 p.36330 - http://home.ix.netcom.com/~kiyoweap/myth/arms-weap/durendal.htm#relics31 - Ibid

Óðrœrir 33

not give us any insight into the early Salian Frank’s mythology, but they do show, through comparison, what the later Carolingians identified with and appreciated from their 12th century Northern neighbors.

Concerning the cult of St. Martin of Tours, it is possible to get an idea of the indigenous cults of the Franks and possibly Burgundians as well as some Gallo-Roman influences through vestiges of the Ædui by investigating the various cults of what Jean Drouillet identified as Les Vierges Sylvestres (the Virgins in the Trees). According to his research presented in Folklore du Nivernais et Morvan, these cults to the Virgin Mary are a syncretism between the pagan cults encountered by St. Martin of Tours on his travels throughout Burgundy in the fourth century and Christianity itself. He apparently tried fervently to eradicate these cults to female tree-powers among the locals, though he did not accomplish his task to the fullest extent. In this same work it is mentioned that as recently as 1832 there were still many locations in that region that called men and women to place images (idols) at the foot of these trees and talismans as well as phylactery (in the sense of a protective charm or amulet) in the branches in hopes to improve their lives. Some of these various Notre-Dames (Our Ladies), relegated to trees were named Notre-Dame-de-l’Orme, du-Chêne, -Frêne and du Charme,32 names translating to Our Lady of the Elm, the Oak, the Ash and the Hornbeam, respectively. Cults of trees were quite common among the early heathens and these modern holdovers are seen all throughout Europe. In the case of Our Lady of the Ash we find a cognate in Sweden, Askafroa (Ash Lady), and another, the Eschenfrau (wife of the Ash) in Germany.33 On the Continent, there are many tree and/or grove cults which are attributed a special sanctity located directly at a Christian shrine or reliquary.34 Of the countries that hold the largest amount of these cults, we find France with a total of thirty percent of all these sites in Europe. Western Germany comprises 28 percent, while surprisingly Italy (north-western boarder)35 is in first place with 31 percent of the pie. For Spain we count 17 percent, which may demonstrate that the highest count of tree cults are found in areas of historically greater Germanic concentration, though this may also have been influenced by a Gallo-Roman element provided by syncretism. By far the most widely distributed cult was that of the oak tree with 99 percent of the 276 similar cults and once again France leads with a 34 percent share, while Germany has 25 percent and Italy 1936. Is it so much a stretch of the imagination to consider the Franks having venerated at one time a cult of the ash or some other species of tree(s)? As is demonstrated in the Vita Eligii of the Carolingian era, men drove their livestock through hollow trees and woman not wishing to produce viable offspring would insert the semen of their husbands into dead trees, so its quality would suffer.37 I would think that there is no denying that well into Christian Merovingian Gaul, heathen practices survived.

Given these examples, the study of the Franks for the purpose of reconstructing their worldview is no less laudable than that of the Anglo-Saxons, Icelanders, Normans and others. The new Christian religion, however pious it was meant to be, could not stem the old customs and not even Cæsarius of Arles could do so, having complained “…And why do such wretches come to church? And why did they accept the sacrament of baptism, if afterwards they are to return to the sacrilege of idols.”38 Their language, having evolved from a congruence of Vulgar Latin with Frankish, Gaulish and Saxon words did not wipe their heathen worldview from within their being. Such changes were fluid and organic taking hundreds if not thousands of years to occur. Even to the present day, some of those early customs persist in modern French and German law and the holidays celebrated by their Germanic ancestors are still strong. Authors such as

32 - Drouillet, Jean. Folklore du Nivernais et Morvan. Thoreau, La Charité-sur-Loire 1959 P. 330-3333 - Porteous, Alexander. The forest in Folklore and mythology. Dover, New York 2009 p. 9334 - (N)… p.32835 - ibid… p. 8936 - ibid… p.32837 - (F) Filotus, Bernadette. Pagan Survivals, Superstitions and Popular Cultures. PIMS, Toronto 2005 p. 14838 - ibid… p. 91

Óðrœrir 34

A.C. Murray (Germanic Kinship Structure, After Rome’s Fall), Katherine Fischer Drew (Law of the Salian Franks), Ian Wood (Franks and Alemanni), James Wallace-Hadrill (Frankish Church), Hendrik Kern (Lex Salica) and others have only begun to scratch the surface of what is available for our understanding. Though the majority of available written sources are in French, this is to my mind no excuse not to do proper research before proclaiming one to be a modern heathen of the “Frankish type” or to prevent curiosity.

Óðrœrir 35

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, Terence. Celticism. Radopi B.V., Georgia 1996

Chaney, William A. The Cult of Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England. California UP, Berkley 1970

Claussen, Martin A. The Reform of the Frankish Church. Cambridge UP, New York 2004

Davidson, Hilda Ellis. The Lost Beliefs of Northern Europe. Routledge, London 1993

Drouillet, Jean. Folklore du Nivernais et Morvan. Thoreau, La Charité-sur-Loire 1959

Falk, Avner. Saracens and Franks. Karnak, London 2010

Filotus, Bernadette. Pagan Survivals, Superstitions and Popular Cultures. PIMS, Toronto 2005

Green, Miranda J. The Celtic World. Routledge, New York 2006

Hessel, J.H. Kern, H. Lex Salica. Murray, London 1880

Hillgarth, J.N. Christianity and Paganism, 350-750: The Conversion of Western Europe. Pennsylvania UP 1985

Koch, John T. Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia V. 1: ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara 2006

Kortland, Frederik Herman Henri. Italo-Celtic Origins and Prehistoric Developments of the Irish lan- guage. Rodopi, B.V., Amsterdam – New York, N.Y. 2007

Lehmann, Winfred Phillip. Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Brill, Netherlands 1986

Liberman, Anatoly. An Analytical Dictionary of English Etymology. Minnesota UP, Minneapolis 2008

Longnon, Auguste; Meyer Paul. Raoul de Cambrai. Meyer, Paris 1877

McKitterick, Rosamond. Charlemange: The Formation of a European Identity. Cambridge UP 2008

Murray, A.C. Germanic Kinship Structure. PIMS Toronto 1983

Nolan, Mary Lee & Sidney. Christian Pilgrimage in Modern Western Europe. North Carolina UP, N. Carolina 1989

Porteous, Alexander. The Forest in Folklore and Mythology. Dover, New York, 2009

Tacitus, Cornelius. Germany and Agricola of Tacitus:

Thierry, Augustin. Récits des Temps Mérovégiens V.1

Townsend, George Henry. Manual of Dates. Warne, London 1877

Yorke, Barbara. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. B.A. Seaby, London 1990

Óðrœrir 36

It was about two years ago that my wife and I moved into our new home. Prior to that, I made an oath that within one year of us moving in, a godpole would be carved and erected on the property we were looking at. I am happy to say that since then, a godpole has been carved in honor of Freyr, and it is not only “in” the ground, but in a grove on our property that was prepared by myself, my wife and a handful of heathen friends. Inside this grove which is bordered by a rock wall on both sides and a rather large deadfall pine in the back, is the Freyr godpole. There also stands a carved Thor godpole, and a hörg onto which offerings are poured. In the grove are also two mounds underneath which are offerings that were given during a Winternights celebration held here along with us and the members of another local group. As heathens, groves and sacred spaces are one example of the many places in which we worship that is substantiated both in the history of our ancestors1 and in the practice of modern heathens today. The purpose of this essay is to shed some light on the historical examples of sacred groves, and how my family has taken that information and applied it to our lives.

In Guta saga the word “stafgardur” is used for a fenced off area of worship “people believed in groves and mounds, shrines and stafgardur and pagan gods.”2 There is also a similar expression from early Northumbrian law, “fridgeard”, referring to a fenced area containing a rock, tree or spring. It seems that groves were exactly that, groves of trees or cleared out areas where worship took place, these groves were

1 - Hollander, 1969, Voluspa Stanza 7; Hyndluljoth stanza 10; Vafthrudnismal stanza 38; Tacitus, Germania Ch. 7,9,39,40.2 - Guta saga Ch. 4 & 5.

The two godpoles standing in the grove.

Sacred Groves in Germanic and Scandinavian Heathenry

An Introduction and one Family’s experience•

By Gary P. Golden Jr.

Óðrœrir 37

usually marked off by stones or a fence which would underline the concept of an “inner space” and an “outer space” with the former being more sacred or “off bounds”3 .

According to Terry Gunnell in “Hof, Halls, Goðar and Dwarves: An Examination of the Ritual Space in the Pagan Icelandic Hall” these offerings to local natural features also seem to have been a private place of worship as the key cult activities mentioned in the sagas do not seem to have taken place at these sites.4 According to Hector Chadwick it seems that for the Germanic tribes the groves which their priests presided over were tribal sanctuaries and it is probable that tribal meetings be they emergency or ordinary were held in these groves. The priests had guardianship of these groves and the symbols and other holy objects contained in them and when the host assembled for war it was the priests who took the symbols and carried them into battle.5

According to Gunnell, there are also numerous references to sacrifices of humans, animals and objects of worth in islands, lakes, streams and marshes, by writers from the sixth century all the way up to the eleventh century. There is visual support on the eighth century Gotland stones and the tapestry found on the Oseberg ship, as well, Latin sources tell of human and animal bodies hanging from trees in sacred groves.6 Evidence also exists of whole armies’ worth of weapons being committed to marshes, pools and lakes. New archeological finds continue to support this showing that bog/lake offerings in Scandinavia have roots in the Bronze Age, with some places being used for over 500 years, often in proximity to wooden idols.7 Stone and Bronze Age petroglyphs in Southern and Northern Scandinavia point to regular use of certain outdoor sites for worship from an early stage and, as was mentioned earlier, many of these sites were marked off by stones or a fence which would underline the concept of an “inner space” and an “outer space”.8 We find references to the hanging of animal bodies from the trees of a holy grove and this practice is attested to having been done at the great temple at Uppsala which had an adjoining holy grove as holy groves were sometimes adjacent to other holy land marks. In this holy grove were hanged the bod-

3 - Tacitus, Germania Ch. 39 & 40.4 - Gunnell, 2001.5 - Monro, 1900.6 - Gunnell, 2001.7 - Gunnell, 2001; Also in Brink, 2001.8 - Ibid.

Óðrœrir 38

ies of animals and men which had been sacrificed.9 In Hervarar Saga Hlöðr Heiðreksson was said to have been born in a holy wood with weapons and horse.10

The cultic importance of these sites cannot be overlooked and this seems to be reinforced by their loca-tion. They were in a recognized local settlement or region often in borderline areas, but in close proximity to key settlements and meeting places where certain groups of people came to their religious center for contact with their gods to bestow gifts. Place name evidence further supports this with names like Fro-sakur (Freyr’s field), Torslunda (Thor’s grove) and Freysvik (Frey’s bay).11

So what is it we now know so far? We know that worship outside was not confined just to groves but also encompassed other natural features as well but what does that mean for us today? Is any grove of trees, pile of rocks, pond, marsh or waterfall a sacred space? My thoughts are “no”, and for several reasons. If you look at all the examples we have, from the Poetic Edda, the various sagas and archeological evidence, the one thing that always seems to be found within these spaces is gifts of some kind. In order for these spaces to be considered sacred or holy, there must be a cultivated relationship there between both gods and men, it is not land in and of itself that is important but land that has been shaped and claimed, and treated as holy through ritual and gifting. Land in general is not important – unless it has ties to your family – and holy sites are most important of all. It is through the development of a relationship between gods and men through a reciprocal gifting relationship that these spaces become sacred, and the longer this relationship is cultivated at this site, the better.

So now that you have this sacred space that you have set aside and cordoned off, space that has actively been tended with offerings what shouldn’t you be doing in it? Many believe that the prohibition of violence would be one of the most important rules concerning holy ground and another rule closely associated to this was the bringing of weapons into it. This tradition was recorded of the Semnones and Suevians by

9 - Jean-Baptiste Brunet-Jailly, 1998.10 - Alfta Svanni Lothursdottir, 2011.11 - Gunnell, 2001.

Two mounds cover the past year´s offerings.

Óðrœrir 39

Tacitus in the second century, and recorded in the Icelandic laws 1000 years later.12 In Eyrbyggja saga, Thorvard considered the fjord where he landed in Iceland so holy that he declared

that nothing was to be slain there with the exception of homestead cattle.12 The penalties for those who violated these bans could be quite severe as the penalty for killing someone on holy ground was outlawry. This law applied to the hof as well as the fields that surrounded it. It also applied to the Thing-place which was regarded as holy, while the Thing was being held. The penalty for bringing weapons onto holy ground was sometimes not as drastic as outlawry. In Vatnsdale Saga it is said that while Hrafn and Ingimund are walking and involved in a very engrossing conversation Hrafn inadvertently walks into a hof with his weapon. His penalty for this was that he had to give up his valued sword whose name was Aettartangi.13 Another example of outlawry from violence done on holy ground is found in Kjalnesinga Saga. A certain Búi entered a hof to find Thorstein laying on his face in front of the statue of Thorr. Búi crept up to Thorstein silently and before Thorstein could react he picked Thorstein’s head up and smashed it against a rock, killing him. Búi then carried his body out and threw it near the fence of the enclosure. He then set the hof on fire and locked the doors. Búi was later outlawed for this act.14 In Fridthjof’s Saga, Fridthjof is outlawed after he entered the Dísir hof and struck King Helgi; an act that caused the hof to catch fire and thereby he proved that his name was one well deserved, as his name Fridthjof means “peace-thief.” The gods themselves were thought to avenge these desecrations as is evidenced in Fridthjof’s Saga, when Fridthjof’s men beg him to make amends to King Helge and pray that Baldr would take his wrath for Fridthjof’s violating the hofs in Baldrshaeg.15

Another example we have occurs in Viga-Glúms Saga, Glúm kills a troublesome neighbor in a field that is holy to Freyr, and incurs the gods wrath, which would eventually lead to the need to forfeit his lands as a result of this act.16 Viga-Glúms Saga also describes a sanction on Thvera which forbade condemned men to stay there because the place was sacred to Freyr, people who had broken the law also were likewise excluded from the area enclosed by the sacred ropes of holy places16. In Eyrbyggja saga, Thorolf considered Helgafell so holy a place “that no men should defile the field with blood-shedding, and moreover

12 - Mattingly, 1970; Simpson, 1967.

The hörg where liquid offerings are poured.

Óðrœrir 40

none should go thither for their needs, but to that end was appointed a skerry called Dirtskerry.” 13 The Kjalleklings said they would waste no more shoe leather on trips out to the skerry to relieve themselves and because of this a fight ensued and blood was spilled on holy ground. Needless to say, urination and defecation in holy sites was forbidden.

This is just a small sampling of some of the references we have in regards to the practices of our ances-tors that we have, and we as modern heathens should use this information accordingly. We first need to understand the reasons as to why our ancestors did these things the way they did and from there we can put into practice rituals that, while not being identical to what they did, will at least be in line with it. By using this evidence, we create our rituals in a manner that we feel connects with what literary and archeological records indicate our ancestors did.

In the time since our grove was opened back in April of 2010 we have conducted two rituals: the open-ing of the grove, in which offerings were given, and again in October, at a Winternights ritual in which offerings were given, burned and a mound placed over them. This mound sits alongside another mound inside the grove with all of the offerings made to this day. It is my goal that this grove area continues to cultivated by both ourselves and the gods as more rituals take place in it and more offerings are made and that those whom we share it with benefit from it.

13 - Vatnsdale Saga.14 Kjalnesinga Saga.15 Fridthjof’s Saga.16 Viga-Glúms Saga.

17 Eyrbyggja saga Ch. 4.

Óðrœrir 41

BibliographyAnderson, J.G.C. Tacitus Germania. 1st. London: Duckworth Publishers, 2007.

Brink, S. Mythologizing landscape: Place and space of cult and myth. In M. Stausberg (Ed.), Kontinuitäten und Brüche in der Religionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Anders Hultgård zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 23.12.2001. (pp. 76-112). Berlin. Walter de Gruyter, 2001.

Collinew W. Kormaks Saga: The Life and Death of Cormac the Scald. New York: Ams Pr Inc, 1940.

Gunnell, Terry. Hof, Halls, Goðar and Dwarves: An Examination of the Ritual Space in the Pagan Icelandic Hall. Cosmos. 17 (2001): 3-36.

Hollander, Lee. The Poetic Edda. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1962.

Jean-Baptiste Brunet-Jailly (trans).Histoire des Archevêques de Hambourg: avec une Description des îles du Nord par Adam De Brême. Paris. Gallimard, 1998.

Lothursdottir, Alfta. Religious Practices of the Pre-Christian and Viking Age North. New Northvegr Center. Northvegr.com, 2006. Web. 8 Aug 2011.

H. Mattingly & S.A. Handford (eds.).Tacitus: The Agricola and the Germania. New York. Penguin Books. 1970.

Monro, Chadwick H.. The Ancient Teutonic Priesthood. Folklore. 11, No 3 (1900): 268-300.

Pallson, Hermann, and Paul Edwards. Eyrbyggja Saga. New York: Penguin Classics, 1989.

Peel, Christine. Guta Saga: The History of the Gotlanders. London: The Viking Society for Northern Research, 1999.

Simpson, Jacqueline. Everyday Life in the Viking Age. New York: Dorset. 1967.

Óðrœrir 42

Afterword

Blessed are the rich, for they possess the earth and its glory.Blessed are the strong, for they can conquer kingdoms.Blessed are they with strong kinsmen, for they shall find help.Blessed are the warlike, for they shall win wealth and renown.Blessed are they who keep their faith, for they shall be honored.Blessed are they who are open handed, for they shall have friends and fame.Blessed are they who wreak vengeance, for they shall be offended no more, and they shall have honor and glory all the days of their life and eternal fame in ages to come.

-George Fenwick Jones, “Honor in German Literature” University of North Carolina Press,(1966).

The present quote is a Germanic parody of the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount in Mathew 5:3-12. It was not written to codify a system of morality for the German heathens, but to demonstrate the disparity between Christian values and those of the Germanic heathen. I found it rather fitting as a close to the first volume of Odroerir: The Heathen Journal, because of how well it expresses the distinctiveness of the ancient heathen value system. Thanks to the unceasing commitment of the countless individuals and groups that have developed and grown over the past several decades, I can echo the words of Bil Linzie in the beginning of this paper, and say that those ancient systems of values, relationships, and worth are returning. We have the remnants that have been handed down to us from the ancient world to look to for information, enjoyment, and enthrallment. However, we also have a very real and very healthy modern community of folk who follow those old customs and traditions, and are always developing new ones. I am very proud to be a part of that community and I would like to thank each and every individual who has taken the time to read our offering. If it suits you, please share Odroerir with your friends and folk. The journal is free in that it doesn’t cost a penny to read or to share, and we hope everyone takes advantage of that. When the idea of this journal first hatched, we wanted to put out an easily accessible and academically reliable source on heathenism for those who might be looking for it. So the only cost that we ask, other than the time it took you to read this journal, is that you consider helping to spread the word so that those who might be looking, may find their own draught of Kvasir’s Blood.

Thanks for Reading!Joshua RoodVolume 1 EditorAugust 17, 2011

Óðrœrir 43

Thank you for reading Odroerir: The Heathen Journal.

The journal you just read can be downloaded for free from our website. Remember that as an active resource, our website is the best source for all full volumes, individual articles, current events, and even contests! We’re also very active on both Facebook and on Twitter. For the fastest, most efficient way to stay up to date with us, be sure to follow us there!

www.odroerirjournal.com

www.facebook.com/odroerir

Contributing to Odroerir:

Odroerir: The Heathen Journal welcomes and encourages a variety of submissions for both journal and website publication. Our goal is to investigate and portray historical heathenism as accurately as possible while demonstrating the variety and creativity with which it can be reconstructed today. We also seek to provide entertainment in the form of art, poetry, comics, and media coverage. If you feel you have something to contribute, we encourage you to contact us.

Check our website for a current description of the types of submissions we are accepting! Be sure also to check our Submissions Format Guidelines!