Talk:Anglo-Saxon paganism/Archive 1

Deities[edit]

I think it would be better if we just had a list of gods and godesses, and then gave them all their own pages. Rather than having brief paragraphs here and then recycling the information on seperate pages. If people want to know something about a god then they can click and then we can go into all the available information Æscing (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Heathen King[edit]

"The last pagan Anglo-Saxon king, Cædwalla of Wessex, died in 689"

Cædwalla abdicated in 688. He was not a king when he died, and nor was he a Heathen. He was baptised by the Pope.Æscing (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last heathen king was either Penda or Wihtgar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.80.37 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last openly Heathen king was Arwald who was killed in battle in 686. People usually say it was Penda or Cædwalla. [[Penda[[ is just plain wrong, and while [[Cædwalla] was king for 2 years after Arwald, his religion is ambiguous. He was unbaptised, but he supported the church and there is no evidence of Heathen practice. Æscing (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penda isn't just "plain wrong", because Penda was the last pagan king of a major kingdom and the last of any significance. If you read the article, you will find that it is for good reason that Penda's fate, not Arwald's, is considered "decisive as to the religious destiny of the English". --dab (𒁳) 07:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penda was the last Heathen king of Mercia and it may be true that his conversion was decisive as to the religious destiny of all the other kingdoms, but he was not the last Heathen king and to say so is misleading at best. Personally I think Wessex were pretty powerful and they had a Heathen King into the 680s.Æscing (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page creation[edit]

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

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

Yogensha 02:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious information[edit]

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

What, you think they were Hindu or something? —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course they were not Hindu. They probably followed a form of religion similar to the Germanic paganism of the continent. However, it is not clear what that form of paganism looked like. North points out in his book Heathen Gods in Old English Literature that there were much more pressing concerns to the average Anglo-Saxon (such as finding food) and it is likely that religion played a very limited role in day to day life. There is no real support for the idea of a monolithic Anglo-Saxon paganism and the information we attempt to carry over from Norse paganism is mostly based on 12th century Icelandic sources (two centuries after the conversion period). Therefore, the position that Anglo-Saxon paganism does not merit a separate article seems somewhat reasonable. We just don't have enough information available to us. - Edmund 23:25, 01 April, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.250.57 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ostara[edit]

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

Sources[edit]

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

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

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

Wildly speculative[edit]

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

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

Original research[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

A few notes in response to Yst:

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

Some examples that you are missing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White Horses.[edit]

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

In principle you are right, the White Horses are much older then the Anglo-Saxons. But, when the Anglo-Saxons invaded Brittany, they saw their gods and heros in some of these old works. So it is well known, that Wayland's Smithy near of the Uffington Horse has about the same age as the Horse, allthough, the Anglo-Saxons saw in this huge Monument the smithy of their smith-hero Wayland. An other prehistoric tomb is Adam´s Grave (Wiltshire), which was called Wodnes beorg in the ninth century (and nowadays after the biblical Adam!).

But of course you have to be carefully about modern interpretations and specially about the article "Anglo-Saxon Polytheism". This article is full of nonsense. There were no "Wens" no "Ingui Fréy", no "Freya", no "Neorð", no "Niht" and so on. This is nothing else than a little bit dreaming of some people.

Obviosly, the first sentence "Anglo-Saxon polytheism refers to the Migration Period Germanic Heathen religion practiced by the Anglo-Saxons in 5th to 7th century England." shoud be changed into: Anglo-Saxon polytheism refers to neopagan Heathenism practiced by the Anglo-Saxons in 20th to 21th century England. --Al-Qamar 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

while it may be correct that neopaganism is easier to document than historical paganism, the topic of this article is nevertheless the latter. Fanciful intrusions from neopagan literature should of course be tagged and removed. --dab (𒁳) 16:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angol-Saxon or Neopagan[edit]

There is no old source, mentioning "Ingui Fréy", "Freya", "Neorð", "Niht" and so on. Most part of the artile is just dreaming. --al-Qamar 10:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seaxneat[edit]

Seaxneat is mentioned in the list of gods, but no other information is given. There is another article on wiki about Seaxnet and some of the details should be incorperated into this article. Seaxneat was aparticularly important diety in the south-east, where the first saxons are thought to have landed and settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.152.5 (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased these parts concerning Seaxneat:

"Seaxneat was only worshipped in Essex, as he was seen as the progenitor of the East Saxons, whereas the West Saxons and South Saxons claimed different genealogies."

"The god Seaxnēat was not worshipped by all the Anglo-Saxons, but only by the East Saxon tribe who settled in southern England and formed the kingdom of Essex."

How do we know who the South Saxons claimed when their genealogy didn't survive? To say Seaxneat was only worshipped by the East Saxons is jumping to conclusions. All we can say with certainty is that the genealogy of the house of Essex is the only one to claim Seaxneat as ancestor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Æscing (talk • contribs) 02:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning[edit]

I've since gone through and removed most of the offending passages that are clearly improperly referenced. I will continue to do so as time permits. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comparative mythology[edit]

Here is a paragraph removed as "absolutly unreputable and unsientifical Rubbish!" on 6 April:

An impression, but only that, of the Anglo-Saxon mythology can be obtained from reading about Scandinavian mythology. The latter was written down much later, by Snorri Sturluson, because Iceland remained pagan until well into the Christian era (c.1000). The Norse of Iceland and the English certainly shared a common ancestry in 6th century Denmark. The Anglo-Saxons were a largely illiterate society and tales were orally transmitted between groups and tribes by the Anglo-Saxon traveling minstrels, the scops, in the form of verse.

Now while I admit this isn't great prose (nor is it mine), I fail to see what is controversial about the gist of the statement, that much of the reconstruction of Anglo-Saxon pre-Christian religion, for lack of primary sources, is based on comparison with the better attested Old Norse tradition. Thus, for example, would we be unable to make heads or tails of the Aegil scene on the Franks Casket were it not for comparanda in Norse mythology that allow the reconstruction of an Agilaz story. The point is made, with the proper caveats, on p. 102 of The Conversion of Britain 600-800 (2006) [1]. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were differences[edit]

I'd like to see the word essentially or one like it in these sentances "Anglo-Saxons was (+essentially) the same deity as Thor of the Norse and Donar of the Germans. Likewise, Woden of the Anglo-Saxons is (+essentially) the same as Óðinn among the Norse and Wodan of the Germans." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.123.158 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making this page better[edit]

Hello to all editors interested in the religions of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. To put it bluntly; this page needs work. I've had a go, as have others, and we've ended up clashing. So, let's start a discussion here. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Just a few points that I'd like to introduce:

1) Is "pantheon" quite the right title to use when things like cofgodas are included in this section. Would not "Deities" be more appropriate?

2) The sections such as "Pantheon", "Mythology" etc. are all seperate sections. I would propose putting most of these under a larger heading of "Core Concepts" or "Beliefs" or something, as is used in the pages of virtually all religions' articles.

So, what do we all think?(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"Gods" is fine as a section heading. "Beliefs" isn't, for the simple reason that the material treated isn't about "belief". It is a Christianity-centric misconception that paganism has anything to do with "belief" in the first place. "Pre-Axis-Age" (or pre-monotheistic) religion is mostly about orthopraxy, ethos and mythology, and not about "belief". "Core Concepts" smells of {{synthesis}}. If you have a source listing "core concepts", fine, refer to the source. --dab (𒁳) 21:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about "Gods", I'll change it. No source I know of refers to these things as "Core Concepts", but I really don't see any alternative at the moment.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Didn't the Anglo-Saxon pagans BELIEVE that the gods existed, and BELIEVE in the mythology surrounding them? They may not have had the same view of belief as Christianity, in that they didn't see belief as the cornerstone of salvation, but they still had beliefs, and the usage of the word is made by several scholars such as Brian Branston (The Lost Gods of England) and Brian Bates (The Real Middle-Earth) midnightblueowl (talk · contribs)

While the state of the article is currently pretty poor, it's not going to get any better by citing Brian Bates. Bates is not a reliable resource. See: [2]. If that's not enough, just read the rest. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Bates isn't the best of scholars, but to give the man his credit, his books aren't complete and utter tripe; I think that noting that the Anglo-Saxons believed in mythological creatures using Bates as is a source is okay - even if using him as a source for more in-depth and scholarly information, that, for example, requires archaeological data, isn't. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Bates' work in this area is anything but scholarly. Bates is not a reliable source and should not be used as reference here or anywhere else other than when discussing Bates' own theories. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angles, Saxons, and Jutes[edit]

If I understand correctly, the Anglo-Saxons are descended from the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Did the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes each have their own forms of Paganism? If so, it needs to be mentioned in the article. Gringo300 (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All three were Germanic tribes that once practiced very close forms of Germanic paganism. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean Anglo-Saxon paganism is a combination of Angle, Saxon, and Jute paganism? That seems to be the logical conclusion to me if Anglo-Saxons are the result of the interbreeding of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, as I have heard is the case. Also, more specifically all three are WEST Germanic tribes. Gringo300 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it seems I missed this response. Yes, they are all West Germanic. However, as to exactly how much they differed from one another we don't know, as so little information about them has survived. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you do not understand correctly: the tradition of the Anglo-Saxons being originally composed of the three tribes you mention cannot be substantiated. This should be discussed under Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain. "Anglo-Saxon paganism" is a cover-all term of whatever non-Christian religion was practiced in England in the 6th century. --dab (𒁳) 15:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Dbachmann[edit]

Dbachmann, I apologise for undoing your edit, but I felt that I just had to for various reasons. Firstly the sources that I referenced specifically referred to the religion as "Anglo-Saxon heathenism" not "heathenism" or "heathendom" as you changed it to, which could well be used to describe other "pagan" religions as well. Secondly your use of the word "Form" with a capital letter was simply grammaticaly incorrect. I am more than happy to discuss any changes however, but I just didn't see the logic in allowing grammatical and factual errors to remain in the introductory sentence. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I was on a touchscreen when I did that edit, so yes, it didn't stand up to scrutiny. I have now made good on it and tried to accommodate your additions within the existing article.

Obviously, I wasn't saying that "Anglo-Saxon paganism" is also known simply as "heathenism" or "heathendom". Please. The intended meaning was of course that the "paganism" may be replaced by its synonyms. We should try to avoid repeating "Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Saxon" ten times over in the lead. This is a point of stylistics.

It is a perfectly unexciting point of English lexicography that "paganism" may be freely replaced by "heathendom" or "heathenism" according to taste. You may want to make this point at wikt:paganism, but it seems a little bit out of place in the lead to this article.

In fact, the English synonym of the Latinate "paganism" would be "heathendom" (OE hǣðendōm). "Heathenism" is a strange semi-learnéd hybrid form introduced in the 17th century. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers dab, looks better now in the introduction. However you've completely removed some of the paragraphs which I added, which were fully researched and referenced, as per Wikipedia policy, and which were certainly an impovement on what they replaced. This certainly needs discussion. And also, when you stated that I had induced "article deterioration by good faith but naive editing", I don't believe that this was strictly true. My additions were largely REFERENCED, unlike most of the rest of this article, plus I changed some of the wording that appeared as if it had been written (and no offense is at all meant here) by someone for whom English is not their first language, or that they have difficulty writing English that is easy to read for the average Wikipedia reader. There are also a lot of pointless, unreferenced facts in this article, which really serve little or no purpose here. We can really work to improve this article, but please, appreciate that what I've added was referenced, well worded information, and there was no good reason for the removal of some of it. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have tried to respect the content matter you added. Please stop the heavy referencing if by that you simply mean piling on repetitive footnotes to single few books every other sentence. Also, I am not sure what the Raymond Buckland source is supposed to be doing here. We aren't discussing neopaganism. Especially seeing that the only thing the Buckland reference is used for is glossing weoh and ealh. There is no reason whatsoever not to use a standard dictionary for this purpose instead. As for 'well-worded', I suppose there is some room for debate in this, and if I am criticizing your stylistics, you are obviously free to return the favour. Let's just do this iteratively and in a spirit of collaboration, and I am sure the article will benefit.

So, you seem to have had objections to

The most unambiguosly religious aspect of paganism is that of sacrifice, that is, the dedication of gifts to the deities at designated altars.

I am not sure you understand the "most unambiguosly religious aspect of paganism" part, which is making a very crucial allowance on the relation of religion and paganism for those who pay attention (and at the same harm doesn't disturb those who do not).

In any case, you have replaced this with

The pagan Anglo-Saxons worshipped at a variety of different sites, both in specially built temples and at certain geographical features of the landscape, although it has been suggested that sometimes the temples would have actually been build at a specific geographic feature such as a sacred tree or well.

now, no offense intended here, either, but to me this is hardly a well-worded paragraph. I consider this addition a deterioration in article style without adding anything worthwhile to article content. Your "heavily referenced" style tends to give us the typical Wikipedia prose of the type "scholar X suggests A.[fn] However, scholar Y suggests B.[fn][fn][fn]". This is what we need to resort to in the case of disputed topics. In articles on fields of scholarship that aren't really controversial (just encyclopedic), we need to aim at a result that is actual coherent prose, not a pile of soundbites tied to footnotes. --dab (𒁳) 14:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response dab, and I agree that some of your criticisms are very valid. I only referenced Buckland (and I admit I was probably wrong to do this), because that particular work, The Tree, whilst being a Neopagan text, did have some historical information, and hence I referenced it. I really think that we can work together on this, particularly as now I have a far greater understanding of this subject than I did in the past. And yes, I agree that some of my sentences were badly worded. However I still support my basic work - for instance, my paragraph on "Places of Worship" was definately needed, explaining a vital part of Anglo-Saxon paganism that had been apparently neglected in this article so far. We really have to agree that as it currently stands, this is not a good article, but that we must work towards this. I have a number of books with me which I am using to reference things (although in future I will avoid using Buckland's Neopagan work), and, I can see why you say that I have excessively referenced, and I will try to lessen the number of references which I am using. However, I really think that this can be improved, if we work together, as we once did to produce Witch-cult hypothesis, which as it stands is really quite a good article. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Incidentally, dab, may I ask why you have combined the section on "Places of Worship" with the "Sacrifice" section, the two are not the same thing, and I see no reason why they should be grouped together thus. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

thanks for your understanding. I do not mean to be a WP:DICK about not using neopagan resources. We just should stick to using the best source we have for referencing the point at hand, and for glossing ealh or hearg, we can just refer to any old dictionary. In fact, I do not think it necessary to tag a footnote saying "see dictionary" to each and every term introduced. A better way is wikilinking the wiktionary entry, where the relevant dictionaries can be cited if desired.

if we had some obnoxious "hyper-critical" editor making a big fuss about ealh = "temple" being unreferenced, we would need stick a footnote on the word just to buy us peace. But the meaning of ealh can be checked in every Old English glossary and I see no reason to dwell on it.

If we are going to pursue the etymology of ealh, it would be a different matter. It turns out that there is a Gothic alhs with the same meaning, but that Old Norse alh means "amulet". The pre-Germanic root appears to be *alek- "to protect". It is an open question whether the sense is in origin "protection" in the sense of "defensive wall, enclosure" and hence "building, house" and only after that "temple", or if the original meaning was "magical protection, amulet" and only "temple" from there (this is the theory of those scholars wishing to connect ᚨᛚᚢ).. Discussing this problem will certainly require the presentation of adequate references. Just stating that ealh means "temple" in Old English does not. --dab (𒁳) 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing this matter up. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

right, but I note that I did not address the "Sacrifice" vs. "Places of worship" point.

we should look more carefully into dividing the "cultic practice" material. I have misgivings of moving information on hearg-placenames out of the "Placenames" section into the "Cultic" one.

the important point here is that sacrifice and worship are synonyms in the context of paganism. Discussion of sacrifice/worship should include mention of "places" (altars, temples, etc.), but I do not see why a distinction between the act and the location needs to be made unless we go into far greater detail than we do at present. --dab (𒁳) 15:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be better to rename the section to "Worship" then, instead of "Sacrifice" because, whilst for the vast majority of historical paganism, worship primarily involved sacrifice (of human, animal, or just a simple votive offering), it could also involve invocations and prayers as a part of that sacrifice. If "Worship" was used, it would cover both the sacrifices themselves and the places at which the sacrificial worship took place. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Cosmology section[edit]

In the "Cosmology" section, there is this piece of information slipped in:

(the root "geard" denotes an enclosed area of land; it is the root of the modern words "yard" and "garth"; the Russian "gorod" derives from the Old Norse word)

Now, this is an interesting piece of information, but really isn't necessary here, it's just extra info which adds nothing to the actual section, which is about Midgard. I suggest that we remove it, or that, if we keep it, we at least reference it, as per Wikipedia policy. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I agree this is over the top. This etymological discussion properly belongs in the Midgard article. --dab (𒁳) 14:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. :) (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

New religious movement?[edit]

Why is this discussion section classed (at the bottom) as a "New religious movement" article. Since when was Anglo-Saxon paganism a NRM ? Theodism and Seax-Wica obviously are, but this is not. I suggest that we remove these. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

fixed it. I also don't think this is a "High" importance "Religion" article. "Paganism" may be. Germanic paganism perhaps "Mid" important, and Anglo-Saxon paganism probably just "Low". Of course the importance increases if you reduce the project scope. Thus, this article would certainly as "High" within a "Germanic paganism" project. --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I shall rank it as 'low importance' on the religion project. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Reference conversion[edit]

Our current reference section is a mess. The first step towards getting this article to where it needs to be is getting our references in order. I am now going through and reformatting our current references. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reformatted a lot of our references but there are plenty more that need to be cleaned up. I'll get back to it when I have more time. In the mean time, the reader is invited to do it for me! :bloodofox: (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what referencing system are we now using? I know its Wikipedia policy to gain a concensus on the form of system that we use. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

On this article no system was being used; references were just haphazardly being placed (if at all). I've been applying parenthetical referencing to get things in order. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up of "Deities" section[edit]

It seems to me that the "Deities" section is in need of a clean up, because, whist much of the information contained within it is useful, some is unnecessary, and the whole thing could perhaps be better organised. For instance the first paragraph begins talking about Woden, before veering off on a complete tangent to talk about elves, with the discussion about Woden only returning in the second paragraph. I believe that we must work toward improving this section. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Just as an update, I've gone ahead and made the changes. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Lengthening of Introductory paragraph[edit]

Hello all. It strikes me that the introductory section to this page is somewhat scant, and that maybe the addition of an extra paragraph between the two current paragraphs would be worthwhile, not only lengthening it, but also providing a greater overview of the page itself, briefly dealing with issues such as sacrificial worship and society. I would suggest that such a paragraph could run along the lines of:

Anglo-Saxon paganism largely revolved around sacrificial worship to these deities, particularly at certain religious festivals during the year. The religious beliefs also had a bearing on the structure of Anglo-Saxon society, which was hierarchical, with kings often claiming a direct lineage from a god, particularly Woden.

This is by no means perfect, but would help to perhaps improve this area. Any thoughts? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The opening paragraph should simply be a summary of the article contents, devoid of material not found in the body and free of references. If you haven't already, you may be interested in having a look at Wikipedia:Lead section for some tips. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to attain GA, and eventually A and FA status for this page[edit]

Hello all. I have made quite a few recent additions to this article, in the hope that it can eventually achieve a "featured articles" status. My thanks go to dab and bloodofox for aiding me in this and highlighting any mistakes made my myself. I would just to like to ask those involved what points we should focus on if we are to proceed with this page. I would suggest that we should:

Split the "History" section into further sub-sections, and remove some of the overt emphasise on Christianisation, which is better dealt with in other articles.
Add some further references to the "Deities" section.
Add more information to the "Wights" section (I have no idea what books or references other than Brian Bates to use for this - any advice?)
Further work is needed on the "Magic and witchcraft" section. I am currently reading Bill Griffith's Aspects of Anglo-Saxon Magic so may be able to find some useful information here.
Add some references to the "Law" section.
Add some more information on the "Folkloric survivals" section.

Anyone have any other suggestions? I really hope that we can bring this article right up to a very good standard. I'm no expert, but this subject thoroughly interests me, and as I investigate more, I increasingly wish to bring this article up to scratch. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, and this page could do with some more images as well ! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I am all for this article reaching GA status and will gladly help. The first thing we need to do is make sure it's all solidly referenced. Every line has to be attributed to somewhere, even if it's just the paragraph itself that is tagged with references. If you haven't already, you may want to take a look at the GA requirements: Wikipedia:Good article criteria. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

List of Pagan Kings[edit]

I deleted the list of Pagan Kings. A long list of names isn't really telling anyone anything about the religion. You don't have articles about Christianity with lists of Christian kings. A list of Pagan kings during the conversion period can now be found in Christianization of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms.Æscing (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that was probably a good move. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'll delete the list once again, as stated it really isn't relevent to this article; but maybe it warrants an article of its own. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

History: Merge with Gregorian mission?[edit]

We should just have a brief outline of the time period Anglo-Saxon Paganism was practiced i.e. circa 450 AD - 686 AD. Because we really have nothing to say about Anglo-Saxon Paganism prior to 597, it seems that by trying to write a "History of Anglo-Saxon Paganism" we're really just regurgitating information about the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. I propose that we scrap this history and re-use the information in an article which is specifically about the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, the Gregorian mission article looks good. Then maybe we can just use this article to focus on Anglo-Saxon Paganism as a religion rather than detailing which king converted when. Æscing (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually maybe the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms needs it's own article, because the Gregorian mission technically ended in 653 when the last missionary died.Æscing (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should avoid too much redundancy ({{duplication}} of scope). Your collection of material is a good start, but I suppose most of it should be accommodated either at Gregorian mission (which is already an FA) or at Anglo-Saxon Christianity, perhaps under a "History" section. But that's not to say that your efforts are futile, it may be well to have a page to collect "timeline" type information for now. Perhaps you even want to aim for a "timeline" article altogether, e.g. "Timeline of Anglo-Saxon Christianity", which could include all events related to Christianization. --dab (𒁳) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with that is that I wouldn't really be writing a timeline of Anglo-Saxon Christianity, just a timeline of the conversion. Anglo-Saxon Christianity kept going until 1066. There is a precedent for specific Christianization articles. We have articles on the Christianization of the Kievan Rus, Scandinavia, Hungary...I may be betraying my ignorance but I'm not even sure an Anglo-Saxon Christianity article is necessary. Was it that much different from regular medieval Catholicism? There isn't that much to say other than the history of it's introduction. Æscing (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by all means, do compile a clean timeline of the conversion. This will be a valuable building-block of the full timeline. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The gradual transition from Paganism to Christianity obviously concerns both religions. Yes it is the beginning of Anglo-Saxon Christianity, but it is equally the end of Anglo-Saxon Paganism. So an argument could me made for merging with either article. A timeline of Anglo-Saxon Christianity would start in 597, discuss the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms until 686, and then what would it say until 1066? Æscing (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The History section is most certainly far too long and focuses almost entirely upon the conversion to Christianity; Æscing's edits to it were largely necessary and I believe that they should be reinstated. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Deities section[edit]

Hello all, I was just wondering whether the Deities section needs a bit of a clean up. Having a title for each god seems to excessively lengthen the article when in many cases there are only a few sentences about each deity. Personally, I feel that these should be removed. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I added the titles, and I created a page that was just a list of AS gods. The Deities section just seemed a bit meandering. A paragraph would start talking about one god and then mention several other gods. I thought splitting it up would make the individual gods immediately accessible, and encourage some fleshing out of the gods that only have one sentence. There are still other gods that aren't even mentioned. I'm really wondering how much detail we need to go into about the individual gods when they all have their own pages anyway. Maybe we should just have a list? Æscing (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the titles but chopped the information up so that each god has their own line paragraph/line. I've also noticed we have duplicate information about the charm against elf-shot. Æscing (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Æscing, I do not agree with your approach. Please provide the encyclopedic information first and let the article structure follow suit, not the other way round (empty article structures for future "fleshing-out"). Also, you should not create spin-off articles which contain no information beyond what is already in the main article.

Your Christianization of Anglo-Saxon England is essentially a Wikipedia:Workpage. On Wikipedia, it is better to have unfinished coverage than no coverage, to be sure, but it is ill-advised to create new articles on topics that already have quality coverage, as is the case here, with Gregorian mission being a developed article which even has FA status, and the history of Christianization of Anglo-Saxon England having at least a brief but clean discussion both here and elsewhere. This raises the bar for a new, standalone Christianization of Anglo-Saxon England article considerably, and I do not think the current article meets this bar. It is a valuable collection of raw material which, by all means, has the potential for a valid article, but at this point I don't really see the point in the re-organizations you are proposing. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article because I didn't feel there was quality coverage. Articles touching on Christianization tend to start with St. Augustine and then jump straight to Penda and give the impression that Anglo-Saxon Paganism ended in the Battle of the Winwaed. Before I edited the history section of this article it pretty much ended with Penda, with no mention of the fact that the kings of Sussex were still Pagan, the kings of Wight were still Pagan, and Wessex and Essex later returned to Pagan kings. Before I started correcting them, nearly every article mentioning the conversion stated that Penda was the last Pagan king when in actual fact there were Pagan kings for another 30 years.Æscing (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until the early 8th century[edit]

The introduction says Anglo-Saxon Paganism was practiced until the "early 8th century". What is the source for this?Æscing (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it used to say 7th century, but it keeps getting shifted on the basis that "we cannot prove that paganism did not continue to be practiced even if we don't have any evidence". A clear argumentum ex silentio. It is an important point, and easily referenced, that pagan practice was still a living memory during the 8th century, but that is hardly the same. --dab (𒁳) 10:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources...[edit]

Why is Thor Ewing's work used to support some basic assertions within this article when Ewing's musings on northern European mythology are 1.) not considered definitive, or even revolutionary, and often 2.) downright delusional given the wild original research conclusions peppering the second half of his "Gods and Worshippers: In the Viking and Germanic World"?

Seems a bit silly. There are well-regarded scholars dealing with historical A-S heathenry without having to resort to using a lot of nonsense written by Ewing that is not cited or supported in primary or accepted secondary materials. Does anyone even read the cited works before using them in this article? 216.69.219.3 (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have a point. This is due to the "fleshing out" of the article that has been going on since October.[3] I have tried not to WP:OWN the article, but while valid material has been added, the overall quality of the article has clearly deteriorated. I am not sure what to do with this. I can't just revert additions that are made in good faith and based on references, but nevertheless we end up with an article of lower quality. I suppose it's one of the drawbacks of Wikipedia. With a lot of effort, the good additions can be accommodated even while avoiding deterioration, but that needs a lot more effort than simply reverting edits. Perhaps you can be bothered to help? --dab (𒁳) 10:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anglo-Saxon paganism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

C-Class : The information cotnained herein is good, however the structure is simply appalling; the introduction is far too short, the history section is simply too long, and there are very few images. It's very boring for the interested reader. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Last edited at 19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)