Contemporary Heathen Iconography

[Psychonaut]

I was sitting around at work the other day thinking about the Gods, as I often do, and something struck me: why do we envision our Gods as if they walked right out of the Dark Ages? Judging from the descriptions in the Eddas and the extant corpus of statues and reliefs, our ancestors depicted their Gods as dressing very much like they did. Even though they viewed the Gods as being utterly ancient, their icons were nearly always contemporary. Why then are we fixated on depicting the Gods as they were in the 12th century? As it stands I can only think of a scant handful of artists who depict them otherwise (with Neil Gaiman's American Gods being at the forefront). Is it a sign of the times that we are no longer capable of an original spiritual expression? Are we so far removed from the wellspring of our culture that we must look backwards to express our religiosity? I have a feeling that this type of thing is yet another symptom of what Spengler terms "Second Religiousness" in The Decline of the West (p. 347):


The next phase I call the Second Religiousness. It appears in all Civilizations as soon as they have fully formed themselves as such and are beginning to pass, slowly and imperceptibly, into the non-historical state in which time-periods cease to mean anything.


Nothing is built up, no idea unfolds itself--it is only as if a mist cleared off the land and revealed the old forms, uncertainty at first, but presently with increasing distinctness. The material of the Second Religiousness is simply that of the first, genuine, young religiousness--only otherwise experienced and expressed.

In essence he was prophesying (in 1917) what is happening now with the strict recreation of our original faiths. So, what do you think? Why do we do this? Must we do this?

[Jägerstaffel]

The Christers do it as well.
Jesus on a white horse; angels with swords..

Interesting thought though, I guess I tend to hope our gods haven't succumbed to the debauchery of the modern times like we have.

Imagine a god or an einherjar with a cellphone...

[Ulf]

I think the reason they (the ancients) depicted them as they did was more from a lack of knowing any different way of dressing. We have the advantage of historic perspective.

Why is it necessary for beings superior to humans to change along with humans? Speaking just about the art, I think depicting them as if they were 'stuck' in the past at least imparts some feeling of aristocracy upon them. :shrug:

I don't really envision them as anthropomorphisms, art is a nice way of bringing them within the grasp of the mind, but I think they truly are something near inconceivable, so it does not bother me much how they are depicted.

[Gooding]

Maybe the gods and goddesses manifest to our minds in the forms we could most readily recognize them?

[Hilding]

http://svt.se/content/1/c8/01/17/44/25/valkyrian1_385.jpg

Terje Stensvold as Wotan in "The Valkyrie"...

[HawkR]

I think that the gods have found the "perfect" era(the middleage) so they aren't stuck in any way, and since we know so much about history they shouldn't "need" to change into 21st century. Yeah, it cold be cool to see Odin with a Barett Light .50, but it ain't actually as likely.(Just gave me the thought of a new thread).

This "Second Religioness"-bullshit seems to me as an excuse to make your "own" religion. Example: Christianity can be a "Second Religion" to Jewism as, well, it's clearly shown with "Jesus". Islam is just a copy of Christinaity. Rastafarian is a modification of it all and so on. Sionism is also a good example.

So no, there's no need to "evolve" a religion.

[Psychonaut]

The Christers do it as well.
Jesus on a white horse; angels with swords..

It's not just them; everyone does it now. When you look at religious iconography, practically every religion depicts their Gods as similar to themselves until a point, and from then onwards they are constantly looking backwards as past glories. It's almost as if at a certain point a culture becomes painfully self aware and embarrassed of itself.


I think that the gods have found the "perfect" era(the middleage) so they aren't stuck in any way, and since we know so much about history they shouldn't "need" to change into 21st century.

But, what I'm asking is: what makes the 12th century the perfect period for iconography to cease developing? It seems to me that the only reason our ancestors stopped at that particular point was because of the conversion. If it hadn't been for that, they probably would've kept "changing clothes" all the way up to the Renaissance or so.


This "Second Religioness"-bullshit seems to me as an excuse to make your "own" religion.

I'm not sure you quite understand what Spengler is getting at. The concept of Second Religiousness is in no way a positive license to do anything; rather it is a comment on the fact that at a certain point in a culture's religious development, we stop looking forward and turn our eyes backwards and lament that we no longer exist in an idealized past. This phase of religiosity goes hand in hand with a particular phase of cultural decline and is anything but a positive manifestation. I brought it up because, like Spengler and Yockey, I agree that we are in the Autumn, if not Winter, of the West and I'm questioning if our tendencies to crystalize our religious practices and imagery in the 12th century aren't caused by that very decline.

[HawkR]

But, what I'm asking is: what makes the 12th century the perfect period for iconography to cease developing? It seems to me that the only reason our ancestors stopped at that particular point was because of the conversion. If it hadn't been for that, they probably would've kept "changing clothes" all the way up to the Renaissance or so.
Good theroy, and it seems pretty logic. But take for an example Norse Mytologi, some of the gods and godesses possesed the possebillity of seeing the future(isn't there a word for this?) and therefore they might have seen how the world would turn out, and therefore they decided to stay where they are. Maybe.



I'm not sure you quite understand what Spengler is getting at. The concept of Second Religiousness is in no way a positive license to do anything; rather it is a comment on the fact that at a certain point in a culture's religious development, we stop looking forward and turn our eyes backwards and lament that we no longer exist in an idealized past. This phase of religiosity goes hand in hand with a particular phase of cultural decline and is anything but a positive manifestation. I brought it up because, like Spengler and Yockey, I agree that we are in the Autumn, if not Winter, of the West and I'm questioning if our tendencies to crystalize our religious practices and imagery in the 12th century aren't caused by that very decline.
Oh. okay then:p

[Jägerstaffel]

What would you propose in it's stead, Psychonaut?

[Psychonaut]

What would you propose in it's stead, Psychonaut?

I'm not entirely sure. I'm not a graphic artist so it's a bit difficult for me to think in terms of visual hypotheticals. However my (possible) encounter with Odin certainly didn't appear in medieval garb. I've lately just been thinking of them appearing in a manner befitting their station. The All-Father in a nice black suit; the Wanderer as a bum; the Thunderer as a rough outdoorsman; etc.

[YggsVinr]

Great topic, Psychonaut :thumb001:


The Christers do it as well.
Jesus on a white horse; angels with swords..

Interesting thought though, I guess I tend to hope our gods haven't succumbed to the debauchery of the modern times like we have.

Imagine a god or an einherjar with a cellphone...

To play devils advocate, if we consider both early and modern depictions of the gods each one appears to be dressed or depicted according to function. Would depicting the gods in modern garb mean that they have succumbed to debauchery? If we consider Odin's occupation, for example, would we be depicting him in street clothes or BDUs? ;)

That said, I do agree with you here. I'm not sure I see the real point in depicting the gods in modern clothing. Also, if we actually look at the early artwork depicting the gods, it does not always depict them in what need essentially be "period" clothing (or in some cases no indication of clothing at all).

Below are some pictures I took at a museum in Germany (Mainz if my memory serves me well). The statuette is of Frey and the stone carving is of Loki. To me these depictions are more telling and meaningful than any modern depiction could be:

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc158/Velglarn666/lokifrey2.jpg

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc158/Velglarn666/lokifrey.jpg

[Jägerstaffel]

I guess it all really depends on how the individual heathen sees the gods. Some of us seem to think they're archetypes buried in our psyches; some say they're ideals buried in our blood (I lean this way), some feel they're forces of nature - beyond the need for clothes or much in the way of physical bodies, and some of us think they're stomping around in Icelandic middle-age garb mourning the loss of the world as they knew it.

[YggsVinr]

Indeed. Something I was thinking just now is that we also might consider the changing importance of imagery throughout the ages. Medieval and pre-medieval society was far more visual in that often images and symbolic depictions were depended upon in order to convey concepts or information rather than writing. With so many written texts on the matter and the resources to communicate more easily in writing than ever before do we truly need to depend on elaborate images of the gods to attempt to convey their full meaning and being? Do we have a need to create images of them at all in an age that does not rely so heavily on visual symbolism? To me, early depictions were more along the lines of indicators and communicators of information to an illiterate society, but can any image really succeed in showing, as Jaeger wrote, the gods as archetypes or forces of nature?

Early depictions are usually quite simple and we understand Odin or Thor to be themselves through certain symbols that we associate with their essence (comparable to later on in the medieval period with depictions of saints. A wheel representing St. Catherine, an arrow St. Sebastien and so on to give a bit more of a perspective of what I mean.) Odin is one-eyed as a symbol of his sacrifice for the mead of poetry, ravens and sleipnir may be interpreted as linking him to the realm of the dead as well as other aspects of Odin as Allfather or wanderer, in earlier work he is depicted as dancing with a spear with other berserks but must again be one-eyed to be distinct as Odin, which links him both to his role as patron of the war-cult and his sacrifice. Thor must always have his hammer to show that he is, in fact, Thor. Frey is typically nude with a large phallus distinguishing him as a fertility deity, or occasionally with a boar for similar purposes. These visual symbols must simply act as indicators of figures that most would have already known the significance of through the mythology. Depictions such as one eye or a hammer are timeless symbols for those who know that mythology so, once more, I'm not sure that portraying the gods as moderns or in going into any great detail in depicting them would really be fitting. Is this necessary today?

[Heimmacht]

I think if we ever encounter one of them we would notice anyway, no matter how theyre dressed, Wodan and Loge are shapeshifters they come in many forms. The Gods speak to us in many ways.

[Grey]

Depictions such as one eye or a hammer are timeless symbols for those who know that mythology so, once more, I'm not sure that portraying the gods as moderns or in going into any great detail in depicting them would really be fitting. Is this necessary today?

This point of view would seem to indicate, though, that the gods aren't valid in the modern world. Whether or not they would have been literal gods, archetypes, forces, etc., their followers would have thought them to play an active part in everyday life, ergo for them to be relevant they can't be anachronistic.

You see the same with Christianity. In modern times there has been a sharp increase of depictions of God as a far-removed spectator, rather than an active force in his creation. When God is envisioned, his garb is that of the Biblical period, and when he is "updated" in films and whatnot it is done as a sort of joke.

I believe that this disconnectedness from any sort of spirituality is a product of the times. Our culture is so shameful that we retreat into the past for comfort. And it is hard to conceive of any type of god in such a plastic world except for those equally plastic idols presented to us on the television and radio. Those are the gods of today.

[Óttar]

For fear of producing something with an aesthetic value equal to this:
http://www.catholicsupply.com/christmas/_borders/3000154.jpg
http://cdn.holytaco.com/www/sites/default/files/jesus_winking_christ_1.jpg
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/THEDecepticon/Forum%20Pics/get7ze.jpg

[Liffrea]

An interesting topic…..

I think to begin with there is the historical development of Heathenism to consider and also the nature of the faith.

It’s generally considered that representation of the Gods as anthropomorphic beings was alien to Celtic and Germanic people’s and an influence from the Graeco-Roman world, thus we may surmise that this was an alien mode of thought to northern Europeans (unless we conclude that there is some form of logical evolution in a religious system towards anthropomorphisation and the Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds arrived there earlier than we did) of course much of “Viking Age” Heathenism was influenced by outside beliefs anyway and it’s from this era that we take our pictorial view of the Gods, perhaps Thor as a muscled man with a red beard was no more than a reaction to the human nature of Jesus? Perhaps it was an ideological as opposed to a theological development, Thor represents in many respects an elemental force that isn’t human…….

……which brings me to the next point, Heathenism has a practical bias to it, it isn’t a transcendental faith it is a life affirming one, Jesus taught man to look to the next world (most of the eastern traditions teach the same) our faith teaches man the importance of life in this world, I think, to some degree, this is a common theme in all European Indo-European faiths and not just a northern European phenomenon. The more transcendent elements in Greek cults were probably Near Eastern influences rather than organic growths, whilst the Vedic faith of the Aryan Indians was influenced by the indigenous people’s of the Subcontinent. Perhaps in northern Europe the harshness of the climate and the very real prospect of starvation led to a more “pure” remnant of the God-man gift exchange mechanism or a lack of focus on or interest in transcendence. Hence, as a result, it might be probable to conceive anthropomorphic Gods as having a potential for growth in Heathenism due to the focus on the real world, human like Gods aiding human survival and growth. I realise I contradict myself but this is a thought experiment after all.....

Perhaps the appearance of deity today in the guise of yester year is no more than a recognition of the fact that our indigenous faith was disrupted in its growth, yet if we look at the Hindu Gods they have remained substantially the same depiction wise, perhaps this was an affirmation or solidification in the face of Islamic penetration into the subcontinent to the degree that it became a tradition to portray them in a certain light as well as, perhaps, a tendency to distinguish Gods from man as something more, and greater and not to be locked into the “mundane” world of humanity. Perhaps for us Christianity has led to a fundamental shift in our perception of divinity……….

[Cato]

As times change, so do the images of the divine. This isn't to be unexpected. Modern worshippers of the Aesir and Vanir will not view them, nor worship them, in the exact same manner as their forefathers did.

Nothing is static, not even the Gods- or while of a static substance (the hidden essence of divinity I suppose you can call it), the visual aspects of the divine ebb and flow with the times.

[Óttar]

yet if we look at the Hindu Gods they have remained substantially the same depiction wise, perhaps this was an affirmation or solidification in the face of Islamic penetration into the subcontinent to the degree that it became a tradition to portray them in a certain light as well as, perhaps, a tendency to distinguish Gods from man as something more, and greater and not to be locked into the “mundane” world of humanity.
Catholic and Orthodox depictions of Jesus and Mary have remained relatively static; their development was not arrested, yet Jesus is still depicted like Serapis with long hair and a beard, and both Jesus and Mary wear ancient mediterranean clothing along with a solar nimbus (halo), a trait common to mediterranean deities including Hellenistic depictions of the Buddha in Northern India (circa ~ 320 BC.)

Depictions of Hindu deities have remained relatively static since Hellenistic times, complete with haloes, 3D realist representation, and Grecian topknots. During the Gupta period, male gods were depicted as more feminine (ironically the same phenomenon happened in the West with Jesus and the angels, being depicted with softer features.)

The Greco-Roman element in Hindu art was further reinforced by Portuguese influence.

[Psychonaut]

It’s generally considered that representation of the Gods as anthropomorphic beings was alien to Celtic and Germanic people’s and an influence from the Graeco-Roman world, thus we may surmise that this was an alien mode of thought to northern Europeans

I've never heard that before. Got a cite?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Psychonaut
I've never heard that before. Got a cite?

Aspects of Anglo-Saxon Magic, Bill Griffiths, Anglo-Saxon Books, 2003

I would probably assert further (from general things I have read) that iconography may have been alien to IE people in general and perhaps a Near Eastern influence….

[Osweo]

It’s generally considered that representation of the Gods as anthropomorphic beings was alien to Celtic and Germanic people’s and an influence from the Graeco-Roman world, thus we may surmise that this was an alien mode of thought to northern Europeans
Are you just thinking of the Celts at Delphi, laughing at the statues? Is there really any more evidence for such an attitude than that? Uncontested depictions aren't popping up in every archaeological site, sure, but they're far from unknown.

I don't know which Greek wrote of the Delphi incident, but I'm half tempted to see in it more the personal iconoclastic attitudes of the author (or at least his disgust at the more excessive iconoduly of some of his compatriots. Alternatively, we could take the story at face value, and propose that it was the style of depiction rather than the act itself which so amused. Celtic divine sculpture is highly stylised, even when in a Romanised environment, and the realism of the statuary could have seemed inappropriate to them. Or maybe they were just a bunch of ignorant young braves who should have known better, and whose fathers would have been ashamed of them!

(unless we conclude that there is some form of logical evolution in a religious system towards anthropomorphisation and the Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds arrived there earlier than we did)
:eek:
Modern academia knows of no greater crime than such linear ideas of progress! :D On your knees, Sinner, and recite fifteen 'Hail Dawkinses'!

of course much of “Viking Age” Heathenism was influenced by outside beliefs anyway and it’s from this era that we take our pictorial view of the Gods, perhaps Thor as a muscled man with a red beard was no more than a reaction to the human nature of Jesus?
I really don't buy the Christian idea. I know you're just throwing ideas around for debate's sake, but this depiction just seems to ring too true for this... Conservatism (linguistic and cultural) seems to have been quite a feature of all the sub-Polar peoples, indeed. If it's not the chill effect slowing things down (;)) then it's the fact of living in a more or less geographical cul de sac, out of the hustle and bustle of wider changes.

Perhaps it was an ideological as opposed to a theological development, Thor represents in many respects an elemental force that isn’t human…….
My mother is a redhead, as are her three brothers. I politely propose that you speak of forces you know little about. ;):p

yet if we look at the Hindu Gods they have remained substantially the same depiction wise,
Can we not see the effects of Hellenism, however?

Catholic and Orthodox depictions of Jesus and Mary have remained relatively static;
Aye, it's disgusting what the modernisers have done in the Protestant Churches. Instead of really doing what fundamentalists should and try to determine the historical reality, they just draw and sculpt the figures in modern Arab dress. :rolleyes:

I've never heard that before. Got a cite?
Ah, you picked up on it before me!

[Óttar]

they just draw and sculpt the figures in modern Arab dress. :rolleyes:
Looks like Greco-Roman dress to me, besides Proddies aren't technically supposed to sculpt Jesus.
http://christmyhope.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mary-heart-2.jpg
http://chars.lin.oakland.edu/lin109/Handouts/Greek/olympians_files/demeter.gif
^ Demeter
http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/roman-clothing/images/roman-clothing-4.jpg

[Osweo]

Looks like Greco-Roman dress to me, besides Proddies aren't technically supposed to sculpt Jesus.
Proddies can do anything as long as they protest Papal power.
But you misunderstood me; I wasn't talking about the old Catholic imagery. But I suppose you haven't been in a Church of England church in a long while, and seen the nativity scenes they set up to help the kids visualise the foreigners they worship. They might as well put a few packs of explosives under the galabeyas, and make it even more Arabic.

[Psychonaut]

Aspects of Anglo-Saxon Magic, Bill Griffiths, Anglo-Saxon Books, 2003

I would probably assert further (from general things I have read) that iconography may have been alien to IE people in general and perhaps a Near Eastern influence….

I'm just wondering how accurate that is though. In Teutonic Mythology (trans. James Steven Stallybrass. [London: George Bell and Sons, 1882], 115), Grimm describes the idols of Germania as being composed of faces hewn into shaped posts and trees. Also, the specific word you used was "representations," not just statues. I honestly can't think of any tale in Indo-European lore (particularly Germanic) that presents the Gods as being anything other than anthropomorphic entities.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
Are you just thinking of the Celts at Delphi, laughing at the statues? Is there really any more evidence for such an attitude than that?

Well see my reply to Psychonaut below.

But I would also recommend Miranda Green’s work The Gods of the Celts, where she goes into some detail discussing the representation of deity in Romano-Celtic sculpture, of course the gods were represented in Celtic art but the question is was this a natural development or was it due to Mediterranean influence?


I really don't buy the Christian idea.

I accept it up to a point just because syncreticism seems to have been a normal phenomenon in Germanic religion. Indeed one could argue that this very tendency was exploited by Christian missionaries in order to facilitate their agenda….as it was it didn’t work and what emerged in northern Europe was largely a Christo-Heathen faith rather than a Judaeo-Christian one.


Can we not see the effects of Hellenism, however?

Ottar seems to argue the case; I’m no expert on Hindu iconography so I would bow to his argument on this.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Psychonaut
I'm just wondering how accurate that is though. In Teutonic Mythology (trans. James Steven Stallybrass. [London: George Bell and Sons, 1882], 115), Grimm describes the idols of Germania as being composed of faces hewn into shaped posts and trees. Also, the specific word you used was "representations," not just statues.

In the translation of Grimm I have (Vivian Bird 1997) Grimm does indeed state that the Gods would have been perceived in human form, but he gives the impression they were not depicted as such or, indeed, depicted at all, sacredness was embodied in a “forest cult” that venerated trees and that when the Christians began to convert the Germans they did so by destroying the sacred groves and trees where they worshipped the Gods…..

Of course it isn’t much of a leap to state that images may have been carved in wood, but even if this was so, was it a natural development or the result of external influence?

Tacitus in Germania chapter 9 claims:

The Germans do not think it in keeping with the divine majesty to confine the gods within walls or to portray them in the likeness of any human countenance. Their holy places are woods and groves, and they apply the names of deities to that hidden presence which is seen only by the eye of reverence.

When he later speaks of Nerthus paraded in a chariot he doesn’t make any mention of a physical object present in the chariot and it is more suggestive of the goddess herself actually being present in the chariot. It’s also interesting to note that there is some possibility that people acted as aspects of the gods themselves, for example a priestess representing Nerthus had intercourse with a king who represented the divinity of the sky father within himself.

Griffiths ascribes this difference between Classical and Germanic representation as due to the basis of society and the relative complexity. Namely that the Germans were less complex in their institutions, more migratory and more inclined to an agricultural cycle of worship.


I honestly can't think of any tale in Indo-European lore (particularly Germanic) that presents the Gods as being anything other than anthropomorphic entities.

The thing to remember here is, though, that the oldest IE texts we have date to only around 1500BC, which is at least two millennia after the proposed migration of IE speakers (this is the latest date on the Ukrainian homeland theory, the earliest migration based on a Near Eastern origin would take us back nearly six millennia). Many scholars also believe that the Vedic lays were heavily influenced by the autochthonous population of India.

Despite earlier references our first real picture of the Germanic tribes is from Caesar, whilst the earliest detailed picture of Germanic society is from Tacitus. The earliest references (other than Tacitus) to Anglo-Saxon polytheism comes from Bede in the 8th century, and the Eddaic lays written in the 13th century (nearly two hundred years after Iceland was converted) may not date (at least some of the lays) earlier than the 9th century.

[Hrimskegg]

Hmm...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/Jack-frost.jpg

:viking4:

[Liffrea]

Hmmm......just read this:

As far back as we can see, Indo-European gods are conceived anthropomorphically. So even at the stage when the language did not make formal distinctions between masculine and feminine, it is likely that each deity was thought of as male or female.
M. L. West, Indo-European Poetry and Myth

[Óttar]

When he later speaks of Nerthus paraded in a chariot he doesn’t make any mention of a physical object present in the chariot and it is more suggestive of the goddess herself actually being present in the chariot.


The rite is performed by slaves who, as soon as it is done, are drowned in the lake. In this way mystery begets dread and a pious ignorance concerning what that sight may be which only those who are about to die are allowed to see. --Germania, ch. 40.

Before these lines, Tacitus mentions a chariot covered by a drape. They sacrificed a slave after the drape was lifted. Can we assume that the slave would've seen nothing?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Óttar
Before these lines, Tacitus mentions a chariot covered by a drape. They sacrificed a slave after the drape was lifted. Can we assume that the slave would've seen nothing?

I don’t believe we can assume they saw nothing (I’ll come back to that) but it cannot be assumed there was any form of icon to see. As Tacitus writes:

The priest can feel the presence of the goddess in this holy of holies…..

This reminds me of the Iliad where Homer describes Athena entering Diomedes chariot and her presence being known by her weight as it bore down the axles.

As for what the slaves saw, John Grigsby has argued they saw the sacred ritual of sacrifice as the King had intercourse with a priestess (representing the goddess) who then strangled him to death and placed the body in the lake. After which the slaves themselves were also killed.

[Psychonaut]

As for what the slaves saw, John Grigsby has argued they saw the sacred ritual of sacrifice as the King had intercourse with a priestess (representing the goddess) who then strangled him to death and placed the body in the lake. After which the slaves themselves were also killed.

Really? How very Golden-Bough-ish.