The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

I was referring to the Sámi, but I was unaware that "Heathen" was a negative label to them.

Still, Heathens that practice Ásatrúarfélagið in Scandinavia, or Rodnovery in Russia, or Suomenusko in Finland would be practicing their "indigenous faith", if not a more organize revival of it, would they not?

 
Asatru is most definitely not a revival. It is a recon and it's primarily (if not almost entirely) based on somewhat patchy Icelandic sources. There's nothing indigenous about a recon faith, much less one from somewhere else*. Scandinavia is not a single country nor is it a monoculture.

Words mean things. Revival is not synonymous with recon.


* that is pretty much the definition of Not Indigenous

So your application of "Paganism" are the religions that were generated by 20th Century Pagan movements, yes? I can actually get behind that. Though, I still do reserve my objection to calling Hinduism and the various beliefs of the indigenous Americans as a part of Paganism.

 
They are certainly not a product of the 19th-20th century pagan movement, yes.

Hang on then; what's the difference, then, between Hermes-Thoth, Hermes and Thoth?

Hermes-Thoth is the deity as approached in the entire world since the days of Alexander the Great, King of Macedon, King of Asia, Nisut, son of Zeus-Ammon, son of Ra, son of Osiris, Founder of Alexandria, Restorer of Babylonia, Protector of Buddhism, devotee of Athena, Liberator and Unifier.

Hermes is the limited perception of the god in Greece before the time of Alexander. Thoth is the Greek transcription or pronounciation of Jehuti. Jehuti is the limited perception of the deity before the time of Alexander. Hermes-Thoth behooves other rites than Jehuti. The Greek-speaking Egyptians performed separate rites simultaneously to the rites performed by those Egyptians who spoke Late Egyptian. The worship of Hermes-Thoth was spread in the entire Roman Empire. I might be wrong, but if my memory serves me right there are examples of this in both Mesopotamia, at Hadrian's wall and somewhere in Dacia.

Honestly, not if you ask me. Being too far reaching ends up losing much for cultural identity.

I am not interested in cultural identity. I am interested in the universal gods and goddesses. It doesn't matter if you call him Hermes-Thoth, Merrcury, O∂in, Lugh or Nabu: He is the god of writing and magic anyhow, and known under many names.

Since we are having this discussions by the help of Roman letters, we are all, in a sense, Romans now, and romanitas rests on the shoulders of Alexander.

I know it's digressing from the topic of Kemeticism, but...

Hermes-Thoth is the deity as approached in the entire world since the days of Alexander the Great

I'm going to have to dig into some books (I trust them far more than web sources) but I'm not sure about the historicity of this. In fact, just skimming Wikipedia, the only source of this relation is someone named Angelo thinking that Hermes might be based on a Thoth archetype, dated at 1997, and Carl Jung proposing that the two deities are counterparts.

Skimming Thoth's page, I see that the Greeks considered Thoth to be the same as Hermes, and gave Hermes the name "Hermes Trismegistus" (Hermes Thrice-great); somewhat representing a syncretism of the two deities. His city of worship -  Khmun - became known as Hermopolis, or the "City of Hermes". From what I'm reading, this isn't so much what you seem to be posing, but more akin to the Romans seeing all this great stuff and saying "That's got to be our gods!" The Greeks basically saw Egyptian worship of Thoth, thought to themselves "Hey, cool. They worship Hermes too, but they call him Thoth!" and superimposed Hermes over Thoth, taking a few things as accent.

I am not interested in cultural identity. I am interested in the universal gods and goddesses.

I too am interested in something of the sort; for a while I've been trying to study Proto-Indo-European beliefs, and find what I'm hypothetically calling the "First Gods". But while you might be fine with no cultural identity, others may very well be, and you might run into a lot of contention equating Thoth or Hermes with others such as Óðinn. Believe me, I've met the same in equating Thor as Perun, who's relation transcends a similarity in attribute.

It isn't a 20th century invention, as you admit yourself in the later part of your post.

Actually, no, later on in my posts suggests the opposite; that the Greeks overwrote Thoth with Hermes.

Would you have a specific excerpt from De Natura Deorum? Searching through the publication, I wasn't able to find mention of either Thoth or Hermes.

Actually, no, later on in my posts suggests the opposite; that the Greeks overwrote Thoth with Hermes.

Is it possible, that we are quarrelling about definitions rather than content?

I wouldn't use the word overwrote, since the paleo-pagans of the Roman Empire (and its Alexandrian predecessors) themselves rather viewed it as translation. Just as any other nouns, the regional names of the deities were held to be translatable into other languages. One example is Thoth equals Hermes equals Mercury equals Lugus. The translateability wasn't something entirely new for the Hellenist phase: Already the Hittites had applied that principle.

Diodorus Siculus translates Egyptian deities to Greek again and again in his Library. Since I am in a hurry, I will give you just one example to begin with. When I'm back next week or the week thereafter, I may give you more if you want. My example is from Diodorus' Library 1.12.6.

Egypt is the only country in the whole inhabited world where there are many cities which were founded by the first gods, such as Zeus, Helius, Hermes, Apollo, Pan, Eileithyia, and many more.

Would you have a specific excerpt from De Natura Deorum? Searching through the publication, I wasn't able to find mention of either Thoth or Hermes.

You would probably find the information you seek, if you look for the Latin counterpart: Mercurius. Cicero identifies Thoth with the slayer of Argus in Greek myth.

Perhaps I also need to clarify, that, although crucial for the intensity of deity-translation between the languages in the Alexandrian realm, its successor states and the Roman Empire, the campaign of Alexander wasn't the beginning of the entire translation-process. Early Greek attempts to translate the Egyptian (and other) deities into Greek are found in Herodotus and Plato before Alexander's time.

As I understand it, "Scandinavia" refers to the land that is now Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Areas that would have spoken Old Norse (with western and eastern dialects).

It's not an uncommon mistake in the US to assume that what constitutes "Scandinavia" is a settled matter*.

Scandinavia is not only used to refer to a geographical entity, but also as political, linguistic, ethnic, and cultural entities. Not all values of 'Scandinavia' include the same set of nations.

Ask a Swede. Ask a Norwegian. Ask a Dane. Ask a Finn. Ask a Scotsman (yes, really). Ask an Icelander. Ask an Orcadian. Ask a Faroe Islander. You will get different sets of answers. The same person may well also give a different answer later if the context of the question is changed.

While the cultures varied for these nations over time, the belief in common Gods spans them; they worshiped Þórr, not Donar. Óðinn, not Woden. This is what I mean

Noooooooot really. There are a crapload of assumptions in that statement. For starters, that a few informational freeze-frames in time from one corner of the amalgamation that is Scandinavia can be generalized across the whole. It's likely that Iceland mostly followed and iterated the religio-cultural style of Western (coastal) Norway, as that is where most of the settlers from Iceland originated.

From what is currently know**, there was a ton of variation in how the supposedly "common gods" were interpreted and venerated between Denmark, parts of what is now Sweden, coastal Norway, and interior Norway. Some indications of major differences in how blot was conducted and who 'belonged' within the pantheon based on what fragmentary sources have been found. When you look at the archaeological finds of the hofs found within modern and historical Norway, there are also significant differences.

I would also argue that "recon faiths" can most certainly be of the indigenous faiths of a peoples, and that it can be synonymous with "Revival" - if not intertwined. One first has to know that "Recon" in this sense means "reconstruction," rather than "reconnaissance" as it's usually found. But what is being constructed again? The answer being an older faith. It is thus being revived - conjoining the effort with revival - but is more specifically trying to get back to how that faith would have been practiced before it's fall.

Thank you for patronizing me. I'm well aware of what recon is short for. English is my native language. Would you like to patronize me further or are you done for now?

Anyways. We're back to Words Mean Things.

There's a conflation of faith and practice that I'm not entirely tickled with, but I really don't want to get into it much. Personally, I think that practices can be reconstructed from historical evidence. Faith cannot due to its highly personal and ephemeral nature that doesn't tend to leave "stones, bones, and tomes" around.

At any rate, terming a faith/practice as a revival implies that it did not go regionally extinct and there were enough surviving embers remaining to coax it back. It's right there in the etymology of the word revival.  

This is incompatible with recons. Reconstructed faiths/practices, at least all of the ones I am currently aware of, are pieced together from whatever sources are available from regionally extinct faiths/practices.

Because of this, the use of the term revival carries with it the assumption that there is a certain level of fidelity to the original that recons cannot manage*** due to lack of a sufficient quantity and variety of first-hand, reliable sources.

If it's something like the AAA trying to reconstruct the Norse faith, then yes, it's not exactly "indigenous." But if someone from Iceland is doing the same (which is to my understanding what Ásatrúarfélagið is doing, and it does differ from Asatru) then they are, ultimately, reconstructing and reviving the indigenous faith of their people.

I'm not going to get into specifics, as I don't wish to risk giving people the idea that I'm trying to shit on their sandwich.

I will, however, again highlight that you cannot revive something that's been dead and gone. You can reconstruct it, but you cannot revive it.

Indigenous does not mean "so generalized across such a vast area as to be basically meaningless". Well, it does in the sense that you're using it, which is unfortunate. Indigenous has a very specific meaning and, as Words Mean Things****, using it in a manner contrary to the commonly accepted usage can only lead to frustration.


* I was once guilty of this as well.
** At least in the Nordic archaeological scene
*** Not at all a judgement on recon faiths/practices. They have a much harder row to hoe.
**** You will find as you spend time here that, as a debate and discussion forum, we are very big into avoiding careless word usage. Precision is paramount.

Apologies in advance, I might not get to everything in this as I had some personal issues pop up, but I did read and take in everything you wrote.

It's not an uncommon mistake in the US to assume that what constitutes "Scandinavia" is a settled matter.

Delving deeper, I found this to be the case in addition to what you explained. I'll employ that into consideration in the future.

From what is currently know, there was a ton of variation in how the supposedly "common gods" were interpreted and venerated between Denmark, parts of what is now Sweden, coastal Norway, and interior Norway. Some indications of major differences in how blot was conducted and who 'belonged' within the pantheon based on what fragmentary sources have been found.

Forgive me, but I see much the same within modern Heathenry; we're somewhat divided, but ultimately unified. For instance (and I know that it's contrary to what I said prior; that was foolish of me,) in speaking with Germanic Heathens, we understand that Thor is practically the same as Donar, just with different geographical names. (And I know this also superficially contradicts my discussion with Benedict, but we would not extend the same analogy to, say, Zeus.)

We've division on worshiping the Aesir, the Vanir, the giants and primordial beings, even the elves and dwarves, and then even worshiping them all in their own regards. Blots vary from kindred to kindred, each to their own fashion and devotion. Were an archaeologist in 3016 to study us, it would seem as though we're as diverse as what we can materially tell about the ancient Nordic countries. Yet for our differences, we worship the same Gods.

I suppose I'm just confused as to how what modern Asatru practices (which often span both Norse and Germanic customs) would not be considered indigenous to Nordic countries.

Thank you for patronizing me.

Believe me, patronization was not my intent. I was more just typing out my thoughts to illustrate my chain-of-thought.

Personally, I think that practices can be reconstructed from historical evidence. Faith cannot due to its highly personal and ephemeral nature that doesn't tend to leave "stones, bones, and tomes" around.

I would absolutely agree. Faith also varies drastically from person to person; for instance whereas some see the Gods as their "buddies" or their "kin", constantly watching over their shoulder in a "Guardian Angel" fashion-- I don't. I worship the same Gods that they do, I just approach them differently.

At any rate, terming a faith/practice as a revival implies that it did not go regionally extinct and there were enough surviving embers remaining to coax it back. It's right there in the etymology of the word revival.

I suppose the question is, then, did Classical Heathenism go truly extinct? I've read reports from Iceland that a significant percent of the population either does believe, or is not willing to disbelieve in the alfar. Apparently they even plan road construction around alfar homes and sacred sites. The Old Gods essentially survived through folklore and landmarks such as "Thor's Mountain", cultural festivals and superstitions, etc.

I don't know what anthropologists would say, but to me that seems like embers enough.

This is incompatible with recons. Reconstructed faiths/practices, at least all of the ones I am currently aware of, are pieced together from whatever sources are available from regionally extinct faiths/practices.

Because of this, the use of the term revival carries with it the assumption that there is a certain level of fidelity to the original that recons cannot manage due to lack of a sufficient quantity and variety of first-hand, reliable sources.

This does throw a wrench in it all, but I would then imagine that there could never truly be a "revival" Pagan religion; they all essentially were reduced to "folk superstition" in the same fashion and degree.

However a thought; Paganism was reconstructed in the early 20th Century, yes? I do know that Wicca had it's start in the '50s, and Asatru was founded in '69. Would that not constitute as revival from prior reconstruction? Or would it even work like that?

Indigenous does not mean "so generalized across such a vast area as to be basically meaningless". Well, it does in the sense that you're using it, which is unfortunate.

If it reads like that, such is not my intent. I'm attempting to use "indigenous" as the beliefs "of the earliest kind" for that region and time. I don't know of any Northern gods before the Norse/Germanic Gods in that region, so to my understanding they were the first there. I hesitate to use "Native" as that one seems to be more flexible and updating (e.g. I am technically a native America, despite not being indigenous.)