Religious Syncretism and Heathenry

[Aemma]

Religious syncretism

Religious syncretism exhibits blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation into a religious tradition of beliefs from unrelated traditions. This can occur for many reasons, and the latter scenario happens quite commonly in areas where multiple religious traditions exist in proximity and function actively in the culture, or when a culture is conquered, and the conquerors bring their religious beliefs with them, but do not succeed in entirely eradicating the old beliefs or, especially, practices.

Religions may have syncretic elements to their beliefs or history, but adherents of so-labeled systems often frown on applying the label, especially adherents who belong to "revealed" religious systems, such as the Abrahamic religions, or any system that exhibits an exclusivist approach. Such adherents sometimes see syncretism as a betrayal of their pure truth. By this reasoning, adding an incompatible belief corrupts the original religion, rendering it no longer true. Indeed, critics of a specific syncretistic trend may sometimes use the word "syncretism" as a disparaging epithet, as a charge implying that those who seek to incorporate a new view, belief, or practice into a religious system actually distort the original faith. Non-exclusivist systems of belief, on the other hand, may feel quite free to incorporate other traditions into their own.

I had occasion to converse with a fellow pagan on this forum a little while ago and was re-introduced to the notion of religious syncretism (see above). I admit that up until now I had never really given this notion much thought as it might relate to Heathenry. But since this exchange, the idea of the role of religious syncretism with respect to Heathenry has gained favour in my thoughts. Aren't the Eddas themselves an example of religious syncretic thought especially since we are offered three very different groupings of deities (the Jotnar--yes they too are deities!--the Vanir, and the Aesir) whose stories overlap in a wonderful richness of mythology? Would it not be more truthful as Heathens to admit that the information about our worldview and hence ways are not a product of extraction from singular cultural, historical or spiritual sources, but instead from many diverse ones? I am thinking here about sources such as Tacitus' Germania and his view of the Germanic tribes. We derive images and senses of ourselves as heathen from such sources, almost seeing ourselves through (at least) two different pairs of lenses: Tacitus' and modern-day man's. Is it not possible that all of heathenry is just that, a syncretic religion?

Chime in if you have any views regarding this, be you heathen, Christian or otherwise.

[Baron Samedi]

I merge Chaos-Gnosticism inspired from the 218 current within the confines of Germanic heathenry. I see Wodanaz as an extremely dark being that embrace chaos and alchemical transformation through the trials he puts himself through. I do not shirk away from the shadows of Yggdrasil...

Most heathens would find this to be heresy...

[Argyll]

I had occasion to converse with a fellow pagan on this forum a little while ago and was re-introduced to the notion of religious syncretism (see above). I admit that up until now I had never really given this notion much thought as it might relate to Heathenry. But since this exchange, the idea of the role of religious syncretism with respect to Heathenry has gained favour in my thoughts. Aren't the Eddas themselves an example of religious syncretic thought especially since we are offered three very different groupings of deities (the Jotnar--yes they too are deities!--the Vanir, and the Aesir) whose stories overlap in a wonderful richness of mythology? Would it not be more truthful as Heathens to admit that the information about our worldview and hence ways are not a product of extraction from singular cultural, historical or spiritual sources, but instead from many diverse ones? I am thinking here about sources such as Tacitus' Germania and his view of the Germanic tribes. We derive images and senses of ourselves as heathen from such sources, almost seeing ourselves through (at least) two different pairs of lenses: Tacitus' and modern-day man's. Is it not possible that all of heathenry is just that, a syncretic religion?

Chime in if you have any views regarding this, be you heathen, Christian or otherwise.

Religious syncretism is blasphemous.

[Baron Samedi]

Religious syncretism is blasphemous.

We aren't Christians here, mate...

[Argyll]

In a heathen context :P

[Hurrem sultana]

We aren't Christians here, mate...

jewish:p

[Mercury]

We aren't Christians here, mate...

I have to agree. I was thinking about this very subject earlier. There's many Pagans out there that wish to set up some sort of Ten Commandments of Heathenry and forbid worship of 'outside' Gods or syncretism. A lot of these types are basically Christians that got sick of Yahweh and want to worship some pagan deities, but still apply Christian principles.

Real pagans were quick to merge and add Gods. I'm sure when the Celts were heading West, they syncretized pre-IE deities that were similar to their own. I mean if your tribe worships a Sun God and you encounter another tribe with a Sun God.. it's not exactly rocket science.

[Argyll]

jewish:p

Yeah, I think you need to leave this thread.

[Aemma]

Religious syncretism is blasphemous.

Nope Argy. The more I think about it, the more it seems to be the one thing that makes the most sense.

Let's stop pretending that modern day pagan spiritual reconstructionism/revivalism/however-you-want-to-label-it is based on one particular people (ie, Germanic heathenry, Celtic Druidry, Romuva, etc). My own ancestors came from Northern France, Lower Normandy to be exact. By rights, I should perhaps be practising a more Gallo-Roman type of paganism, mixed in with some Continental Germanic heathenry of the Frankish sort, with a dash of Norse and Saxon Heathenry for good measure, and oh wait, some Celtic Druidry so I can have all of my cultural bases covered. :rolleyes2:

It is becoming more and more difficult for me to lay claim to only one cultural strand and not include some elements of the others as well. :shrug: My very real as in concrete problem right now though is that I can only hear the Germanic gods speaking to me. :/

Besides as Baron reminds us, blasphemy is not really a word found in the pagan's lexicon.

[Aemma]

jewish:p

Unless you have something of substance to add to the discussion bosnian, I will ask you kindly to not troll my thread.

Thank you.

[Argyll]

Well, to me, worshipping gods from another pantheon is blasphemous to me. I believe you should stick to one pantheon. Different pagan religions have different beliefs which cause conflicts (culturally and spiritually) when you try to work with them.

Also, it's incredibly dangerous to summon gods from different pantheons as they usually don't get along with each other. They would also probably be arguing over who gets the soul when you die. Your soul probably can't go back and forth between the deitys' realms (afterlife worlds/ final resting place).

Blasphemy isn't really much of a Christian thing. In its essence, it means doing something towards a god(s).

[Osweo]

Also, it's incredibly dangerous to summon gods from different pantheons as they usually don't get along with each other. They would also probably be arguing over who gets the soul when you die. Your soul probably can't go back and forth between the deitys' realms (afterlife worlds/ final resting place).


So basically all the Celts who ever lived under Romanisation, and worshipped the likes of Hercules-Ogmios or Minerva-Belisama, are fucked, yes?

That's a good few centuries worth of Celtic souls from Iberia, Britannia, Gaul, Rhaetia, Northern Italy, the Danubian Provinces, and Galatia that you've just written off. Sounds like bollocks to me. :coffee:

[RagnarLodbrok666]

So basically all the Celts who ever lived under Romanisation, and worshipped the likes of Hercules-Ogmios or Minerva-Belisama, are fucked, yes?

That's a good few centuries worth of Celtic souls from Iberia, Britannia, Gaul, Rhaetia, Northern Italy, the Danubian Provinces, and Galatia that you've just written off. Sounds like bollocks to me. :coffee:

Hercules-Ogmios :thumb001:

Yes really different ethnic cultures but from same indo-european race. Anyone who says that sounds like one of those crypto-zionists, national futurist/skadi.net types. Von Hoffmeister, really? That guys just a nutjob.

[Aemma]

Hercules-Ogmios :thumb001:

Yes really different ethnic cultures but from same indo-european race. Anyone who says that sounds like one of those crypto-zionists, national futurist/skadi.net types. Von Hoffmeister, really? That guys just a nutjob.

It sounds like somebody accused you once of sounding like this guy (http://nationalfuturism.org/)? Or am I misreading your post? :)

[Osweo]

Hercules-Ogmios :thumb001:

Yes really different ethnic cultures but from same indo-european race. Anyone who says that sounds like one of those crypto-zionists, national futurist/skadi.net types. Von Hoffmeister, really? That guys just a nutjob.

Er.... what are you talking about!? :confused:

[Mercury]

By rights, I should perhaps be practising a more Gallo-Roman type of paganism, mixed in with some Continental Germanic heathenry of the Frankish sort, with a dash of Norse and Saxon Heathenry for good measure, and oh wait, some Celtic Druidry so I can have all of my cultural bases covered.

Why stop there? Seeing as how West Europeans are mostly of pre-IE origin, you mine as well reject all those Astiatic, alien Indo-European Gods and stick to some Basque-like Megalithic religion. That's why this "Folkish" stuff seems silly to me. :D

[Baron Samedi]

Well, to me, worshipping gods from another pantheon is blasphemous to me. I believe you should stick to one pantheon. Different pagan religions have different beliefs which cause conflicts (culturally and spiritually) when you try to work with them.

Also, it's incredibly dangerous to summon gods from different pantheons as they usually don't get along with each other. They would also probably be arguing over who gets the soul when you die. Your soul probably can't go back and forth between the deitys' realms (afterlife worlds/ final resting place).

Blasphemy isn't really much of a Christian thing. In its essence, it means doing something towards a god(s).

The problem with a lot of Celtic stuff is... Where do pantheons begin/end?

It's like a certain Germanic tribe adopting Epona, a Celtic horse goddess (as I have mentioned before).

Our ancestors were pagans and individuals, not strict and dogmatic people who had to rigidly adhere to a mythos.

That's a modern-day thing :D

[Aemma]

Why stop there? Seeing as how West Europeans are mostly of pre-IE origin, you mine as well reject all those Astiatic, alien Indo-European Gods and stick to some Basque-like Megalithic religion. That's why this "Folkish" stuff seems silly to me. :D

lolwut?

You are not trolling me in my own thread are you Mercury? :D

[Mercury]

The problem with a lot of Celtic stuff is... Where do pantheons begin/end?

That's the problem with every pagan religion. Personally I think there is literally only one Pantheon of Gods, with a Sky Father (who the Hebrews would call Yahweh) and lesser deities. Every culture and nation has interpreted the God(s) differently which is where we get different religions. It may sound somewhat new agey but I don't see it that way.. at least the Romans & Greeks would have agreed with me.

[Osweo]

Face it Merc; you're a Tengrianist! :bowlol:

[Loddfafner]

I am happy to toast Cernunnos along with the Norse deities as the Gods of my blood. I also acknowledge spirits of place, who in America might be relics of the Indian peoples. My immediate ancestors have had a longstanding relationship with the Chumash spirits in particular.

[heathen_son]

Also, it's incredibly dangerous to summon gods from different pantheons as they usually don't get along with each other.

I wouldn't know, not being a Wiccan and feeling happy enough sticking with a single reconstructed ethnic worldview.


They would also probably be arguing over who gets the soul when you die. Your soul probably can't go back and forth between the deitys' realms (afterlife worlds/ final resting place).

Assuming you have a soul, assuming the gods want it, and assuming they can claim ownership of it. Assumptions that fit well with Christianity, but not assumptions I am personally inclined to accept from reading Germanic sources.


Blasphemy isn't really much of a Christian thing. In its essence, it means doing something towards a god(s).

While "doing wrong towards religion" is not just a Christian concept, the fluid nature of pagan religion is evident in the lore, and suggests that gods rose and fell, and that the "pantheons" of distinct cultural groups were not in a position of competition with each other.

Blasphemy was not sticking to custom (e.g. for a Seubi chief to walk unbound into the sacred site, or for a man who was not a priest to look upon the image of Nerthus), not worshipping another deity.

Hedeby was a powerful settlement that was both Christian and Pagan. There is no evidence to suggest that they didn't get along.

http://www.archeurope.com/_texts/00049.pdf

[Aemma]

That's the problem with every pagan religion. Personally I think there is literally only one Pantheon of Gods, with a Sky Father (who the Hebrews would call Yahweh) and lesser deities. Every culture and nation has interpreted the God(s) differently which is where we get different religions. It may sound somewhat new agey but I don't see it that way.. at least the Romans & Greeks would have agreed with me.

But the thing is there is not only "a sky god" who is a common god in many cultures. And don't get me started on YWHW because he rightfully belongs to a cult for monotheists.

But coming back to the sky god, if you think about Germanic/Norse heathenry, Thor, the sky god par excellence, was replaced by a warrior god, Odin. The lore shows how the overall cult changed over time: the elementals (Jotnar) gave way to the more agricultural gods (the Vanir) and then to the more warrior-like gods (the Aesir).

As for the notion of a supreme god, some polytheists interpret the gods in this manner but not all. Some polytheists recognise a certain equality of the gods, if you will, where there is no notion of a supreme deity and lesser deities.

.....

[Argyll]

Fuck this bullshit.

[Argyll]

So basically all the Celts who ever lived under Romanisation, and worshipped the likes of Hercules-Ogmios or Minerva-Belisama, are fucked, yes?

That's a good few centuries worth of Celtic souls from Iberia, Britannia, Gaul, Rhaetia, Northern Italy, the Danubian Provinces, and Galatia that you've just written off. Sounds like bollocks to me. :coffee:
Yes, they should be fucked because they strayed from their true deities. That's only fitting for those that leave their true deities. But maybe the Roman deities were sympathetic to those wretched and accepted them.


The problem with a lot of Celtic stuff is... Where do pantheons begin/end?

Celtic lore is categorized and made neat and clean like the Germanic and Greco-Roman lore. Many deities overlap with each other and it's not very clear.


It's like a certain Germanic tribe adopting Epona, a Celtic horse goddess (as I have mentioned before).

Our ancestors were pagans and individuals, not strict and dogmatic people who had to rigidly adhere to a mythos.

If they want to go and worship deities not from their people; fine. But they are contributing to the downfall of their culture and the rise of multiculturalism.


I wouldn't know, not being a Wiccan and feeling happy enough sticking with a single reconstructed ethnic worldview.

Lol, you fuckwit. I'm not Wiccan.



Assuming you have a soul, assuming the gods want it, and assuming they can claim ownership of it.
First of all, what is the point in having a religion if you don't have a soul?
Second of all, if the gods didn't want it, then why would they bother getting worshippers?
If they couldn't claim ownership over it, then why would they care at all about us?

Assumptions that fit well with Christianity, but not assumptions I am personally inclined to accept from reading Germanic sources.

Germanic isn't the only heathen path.
If you say "I will kill Odin and take his place," don't expect him to be nice to you.


While "doing wrong towards religion" is not just a Christian concept, the fluid nature of pagan religion is evident in the lore, and suggests that gods rose and fell, and that the "pantheons" of distinct cultural groups were not in a position of competition with each other.

They may not have been in direct conflict with each other, but today, they're having to fight over worshippers. With my personal communions with The Morrigan, she's not very happy with ANY religions that have taken place on her people's land.

Go ahead and make fun of that and question it. I don't give a fuck what people on this forum think, anymore.

[qoute]Blasphemy was not sticking to custom (e.g. for a Seubi chief to walk unbound into the sacred site, or for a man who was not a priest to look upon the image of Nerthus), not worshipping another deity.

Hedeby was a powerful settlement that was both Christian and Pagan. There is no evidence to suggest that they didn't get along.

http://www.archeurope.com/_texts/00049.pdf[/QUOTE]

[RagnarLodbrok666]

Why stop there? Seeing as how West Europeans are mostly of pre-IE origin, you mine as well reject all those Astiatic, alien Indo-European Gods and stick to some Basque-like Megalithic religion. That's why this "Folkish" stuff seems silly to me. :D

This is what I meant, I said that Mercury sounds just like C. Von Hoffmeister. For dismissing the common Nordish, Mediterrean and Slavic kinship and traditional paganism as having nothing to do with our peoples history. :D

Yes Von Hoffmeister the Stalin worshipping futurist in that link.

[Mercury]

Well that's a coincidence because I'm also a Stalin worshiping futurist.


Yes, they should be fucked because they strayed from their true deities. That's only fitting for those that leave their true deities. But maybe the Roman deities were sympathetic to those wretched and accepted them.

That reminds me of the Christian mindset. Either follow the true God or your soul is fucked. What happens if some of those Celtic gods were made-up deities or merely a dead King who was deified? You would be worshiping a fake being and your soul would have nowheres to go in the afterlife.

[heathen_son]

Germanic isn't the only heathen path.

Once you grow up a bit and stop acting childishly, my advice to you Argyll, would be to go and actually research pagan cultures properly. Find out who the authors are that write to academic standards and stand up to peer review. Then, once you've got a bit more understanding about the subject, you will stop embarassing yourself and can contribute more postitively to discussions.

Until then, I don't think you'd recognise a heathen "path" if it slapped you round the head with a whetstone.

[Argyll]

Once you grow up a bit and stop acting childishly, my advice to you Argyll, would be to go and actually research pagan cultures properly. Find out who the authors are that write to academic standards and stand up to peer review. Then, once you've got a bit more understanding about the subject, you will stop embarassing yourself and can contribute more postitively to discussions.

Until then, I don't think you'd recognise a heathen "path" if it slapped you round the head with a whetstone.

It's funny that you think you can tell me what a heathen path is since I've been on several different ones since I was 10. :rolleyes: I have researched various authors, paths, religions, and traditions. You might want to know actually know me before you start making accusations.

[Loddfafner]

Argyll,

Do you mean 1) that syncretism is inappropriate for yourself, and that you urge others to reconsider syncretism, or 2) syncretism is so offensive that you demand everyone else avoid it, and take grave offense at any attempt to open up the question?

Two problems have been raised about ethnic purity in pantheons one acknowledges: 1) that individual heathens today may have roots in multiple traditions, ie Celtic and Germanic (Aemma and me), and 2) that the original pantheons were themselves the products of cultural conflict and collision, and were not as coherent as nineteenth-century Romanticists believed (Osweo).

You raised a serious argument of your own, that there might be some important incompatibilities between the pantheons which could be dangerous to glibly wish away.

I see that, while the arbitrary, fanciful combinations of traditions by the fluff-bunny Wiccans strike me as silly and counter-spiritual, full reconstruction is impossible. But, I do want to know what scholars know with reasonable certainty based on archaeological and literary evidence, and what is a recent fantasy based on someone's personal vision.

In my own religious practice, I take the discoveries of scholars seriously but I also let myself be guided by my own visions. I do not accept claims of visions of others that are confused with, and asserted as, facts that scholars have established. Scholars have found evidence against the very Romanticist views of pre-Christian Europe that originally inspired a lot of us. Inconvenient discoveries, I think, should be taken especially seriously.

Now, is it better to have this discussion in a spirit of listening and learning from each other, or is it better to attack those who disagree, and express hostility towards real friends who take the risk of stating heartfelt feelings that may differ from yours?

[Treffie]

Yes, they should be fucked because they strayed from their true deities. That's only fitting for those that leave their true deities.


That's kinda bizarre - the VAST majority of Celts have never followed paganism. Even these days when followers of Christianity are dwindling, they still outnumber Pagans 1,000/1.

[Argyll]

That's kinda bizarre - the VAST majority of Celts have never followed paganism. Even these days when followers of Christianity are dwindling, they still outnumber Pagans 1,000/1.

I honestly hope you are not talking about Celts in history.

[Baron Samedi]

Argyll,

Do you mean 1) that syncretism is inappropriate for yourself, and that you urge others to reconsider syncretism, or 2) syncretism is so offensive that you demand everyone else avoid it, and take grave offense at any attempt to open up the question?

Two problems have been raised about ethnic purity in pantheons one acknowledges: 1) that individual heathens today may have roots in multiple traditions, ie Celtic and Germanic (Aemma and me), and 2) that the original pantheons were themselves the products of cultural conflict and collision, and were not as coherent as nineteenth-century Romanticists believed (Osweo).

You raised a serious argument of your own, that there might be some important incompatibilities between the pantheons which could be dangerous to glibly wish away.

I see that, while the arbitrary, fanciful combinations of traditions by the fluff-bunny Wiccans strike me as silly and counter-spiritual, full reconstruction is impossible. But, I do want to know what scholars know with reasonable certainty based on archaeological and literary evidence, and what is a recent fantasy based on someone's personal vision.

In my own religious practice, I take the discoveries of scholars seriously but I also let myself be guided by my own visions. I do not accept claims of visions of others that are confused with, and asserted as, facts that scholars have established. Scholars have found evidence against the very Romanticist views of pre-Christian Europe that originally inspired a lot of us. Inconvenient discoveries, I think, should be taken especially seriously.

Now, is it better to have this discussion in a spirit of listening and learning from each other, or is it better to attack those who disagree, and express hostility towards real friends who take the risk of stating heartfelt feelings that may differ from yours?

I understand his confusion.

I kinda used to be there. Nowadays I really just don't give much of a fuck when it comes to structure or whatever... The spirits will either talk to you or they won't, but it's up to you to make the first step.

Whether Celt, Germanic or whatever.

It's just good just to have a spirit in the first place :D The rest comes later...

Argyll, what is your Celtic focus? Briton, Gaulish? Gaelic?

[Argyll]

Argyll,

Do you mean 1) that syncretism is inappropriate for yourself, and that you urge others to reconsider syncretism, or 2) syncretism is so offensive that you demand everyone else avoid it, and take grave offense at any attempt to open up the question?

The first point is what I'm aiming at. I'm really trying to steer people away from combining different pantheons because that would create cultural tension and, in my mind, would contribute to multi culturalism and the blurring and blending of different cultures.


Two problems have been raised about ethnic purity in pantheons one acknowledges: 1) that individual heathens today may have roots in multiple traditions, ie Celtic and Germanic (Aemma and me), and 2) that the original pantheons were themselves the products of cultural conflict and collision, and were not as coherent as nineteenth-century Romanticists believed (Osweo).

I can understand the feeling of belonging to different cultures (I sort of am, but not exactly, i.e. that I'm pan-British), but on a spiritual level, I believe you should stay close to one pantheon because they are truly seperate things.


You raised a serious argument of your own, that there might be some important incompatibilities between the pantheons which could be dangerous to glibly wish away.

That's one of my main points. For all we know, there could be (and have been and no doubt have been) cosmic wars between gods of different pantheons (and inter pantheon wars). To just blindly accept and worship deities from different pantheons could result in a disastorous spiritual affair.


I see that, while the arbitrary, fanciful combinations of traditions by the fluff-bunny Wiccans strike me as silly and counter-spiritual, full reconstruction is impossible. But, I do want to know what scholars know with reasonable certainty based on archaeological and literary evidence, and what is a recent fantasy based on someone's personal vision.

In my own religious practice, I take the discoveries of scholars seriously but I also let myself be guided by my own visions. I do not accept claims of visions of others that are confused with, and asserted as, facts that scholars have established. Scholars have found evidence against the very Romanticist views of pre-Christian Europe that originally inspired a lot of us. Inconvenient discoveries, I think, should be taken especially seriously.

Full reconstruction is probably impossible unless the gods themselves intervene. However, I also don't feel it is a good idea to blend and mix other faiths as it could make a fuller reconstruction a lost cause in that certain traditions, rites, etc could be lost due to that blending. Sometimes, this syncretism seems almost selfish to me (in a bad way).


Now, is it better to have this discussion in a spirit of listening and learning from each other, or is it better to attack those who disagree, and express hostility towards real friends who take the risk of stating heartfelt feelings that may differ from yours?

It is. But I tend to be naturally hostile to this sort of thing, so I'm sorry if I came off as attacking anyone (which I wasn't, really). I just have extremely strong feelings for this. But, it also seemed to me that I was being cornered by other users on here so that I couldn't get a point across.



Argyll, what is your Celtic focus? Briton, Gaulish? Gaelic?

Brythonic and Gaelic. Seeing as I come from the British Isles only, I truly (and I'm being very serious) only feel a true connection to the British Celts, though the Gauls are Celts themselves (I still feel a conncection towards them). The gods there (Gaul) are really just the British gods with different names (Brigantia obviously is Brighid).

[Osweo]

The gods there (Gaul) are really just the British gods with different names (Brigantia obviously is Brighid).
Gauls had Brigantia, and Britons too. Exactly the same spelling and everything. In Ireland, Ptolemy located a tribe of Brigantes, indicating that exactly the same was seen there too.

Modern Irish 'Brighid' is just a development of a very similar name. *Brigindu or the like. Ultimately, the name is identical.

Bride, Bridget, Breint, Bregenz, Brigand and Briancon are all from the same name, just subject to the twists and turns of linguistics. :)

[Argyll]

Gauls had Brigantia, and Britons too. Exactly the same spelling and everything. In Ireland, Ptolemy located a tribe of Brigantes, indicating that exactly the same was seen there too.

Modern Irish 'Brighid' is just a development of a very similar name. *Brigindu or the like. Ultimately, the name is identical.

Bride, Bridget, Breint, Bregenz, Brigand and Briancon are all from the same name, just subject to the twists and turns of linguistics. :)

Of course, I was just showing that the only difference in the deities is their spelling.

[SaxonCeorl]

Is it not possible that all of heathenry is just that, a syncretic religion?

I think modern variants of heathenry have no choice but to be at least somewhat syncretic if they wish to develop any sizeable body of beliefs and/or practices.* This is due, of course, to the loss of detailed, specific evidence for the exact practices of each tribe.

For example, let's look at Anglo-Saxon heathenry. Although we know many things about what the pre-Christian English nation would have believed and practiced, we now have no hope of determining the exact importance they placed on each god or ritual. We can't know all of the slight differences that would have been found in East Anglia, Kent, Wessex, etc. We can't know the exact elements of marriage and funeral rituals, meal prayers, minor superstitions, etc. Often you'll see references to the Icelandic Eddas in order to fill gaps; this is necessary, if not ideal.

The bottom line is, you can't practice exactly as your ancestors would have practiced because we don't have the evidence required to determine exactly how they would have practiced. So, various broader Germanic beliefs must be syncretised together in order to form a workable system for modern folk (this probably applies to non-Germanic paganism as well).

*I'm speaking more about syncretism within macro groups, such as within the larger realm of Norse/Germanic heathenry.

[Aemma]

I think modern variants of heathenry have no choice but to be at least somewhat syncretic if they wish to develop any sizeable body of beliefs and/or practices.* This is due, of course, to the loss of detailed, specific evidence for the exact practices of each tribe.

For example, let's look at Anglo-Saxon heathenry. Although we know many things about what the pre-Christian English nation would have believed and practiced, we now have no hope of determining the exact importance they placed on each god or ritual. We can't know all of the slight differences that would have been found in East Anglia, Kent, Wessex, etc. We can't know the exact elements of marriage and funeral rituals, meal prayers, minor superstitions, etc. Often you'll see references to the Icelandic Eddas in order to fill gaps; this is necessary, if not ideal.

The bottom line is, you can't practice exactly as your ancestors would have practiced because we don't have the evidence required to determine exactly how they would have practiced. So, various broader Germanic beliefs must be syncretised together in order to form a workable system for modern folk (this probably applies to non-Germanic paganism as well).

*I'm speaking more about syncretism within macro groups, such as within the larger realm of Norse/Germanic heathenry.

Nice post and all true, Sax. I guess I was wondering more about a more pan-European type of syncretism. To put it another way and to use your terminology, how "macro" (or even "meta-") can we faithfully go?

[Belenus]

Interesting thread.

I've had occasion to think about this issue a lot lately.

I'm a Celt with a pre-Celtic Atlantid phenotype. I probably also have some distant Viking ancestry from the time of the Viking settlement of Ireland (though that is unfortunately impossible to confirm or rule out completely). In any case, I'm a mix of indigenous western European and Indo-European (Celt). The old megalithic religion belongs to my bloodline just as much as does the Celtic pantheon and druidic arts. There is also, as I said, the chance that I have some old claim to the Nordic tradition, though it would be a small one.

I'm something of a reformed Traditionalist. I think it's important to trace all branches of the Indo-European pagan religion back to the earliest source we know of (i.e. Proto-Indo-European spirituality), for that is the fundamental core and basis for all later derivations in belief. However I accept that, as peoples develop, their spiritual feelings change and perhaps they come into accords with new spirits and deities, which must be honoured.

Christianity I consider a foreign, anti-European, and subversive religion, the best aspects of which were essentially disguised pagan traditions. I owe no allegiance to the Semitic tyrant and I have turned my back on those ancestors of mine who sought to appease an oppressive and hostile spirit in our homeland. The only aspects of Christianity that have some footing in my sense for the divine are those submerged pagan strains, such as the great Arthurian grail mysteries.

These days my beliefs tend to be somewhat syncretic. I consider it at least acceptable for different branches of the Indo-European tree to adapt their specific pantheons to each other when the need arises, as they all stem from a common source and are composed of basically the same archetypes. Paganism has always been an evolving, natural, and dynamic religion, a reflection of the communal soul of those who adhere to it. I think a degree of hybridity is okay, though of course sticking to tradition and your own kind is a perfectly reasonable rule of thumb.

Presently I live in Germany. My wife is German. I feel that when I worship the gods and roam the forests here, I should at least pay some sort of respect or homage to the ancient Germanic spirits of this land. Also, any children I have will be Celtogermanic, and my wife is wholly Germanic, so perhaps I should at least develop some sort of accord with Germanic spirits.

At the same time I'm trying to reconcile my Celtic and pre-Celtic heritage, which is difficult due to the lack of knowledge we have inherited about both cultures, but especially the latter.

In any case, there's a lot to consider.