Viking Religion

Written by Dyami Millarson

Shamanism, when used in a Germanic religious context, must be defined in a way that fits Germanic religiosity. I define shamanic religion as a religion which to be seen from the perspective of an intermediary. A shaman is, in this definition, an intermediary. So when I say that Othin has a shamanic function, I am saying that He has an intermediary function, namely He travels between worlds to gain knowledge and He ultimately shares His wisdom with mankind.

The concept of shamanic religion is akin to the concept of priestly religion. A priest — not unlike a shaman — is an intermediary between the divine and human worlds. While the study of shamanic religion and priestly religion is basically the analysis of religion as seen through the eyes of the shaman and the priest, we can say that shamanism is equal to polytheism, anamism, fetishism, and totemism; what the Germanic priest/shaman sees is a polytheistic, animistic, fetishistic, totemistic world.

We can say that Germanic shamanism has, strictly speaking, to do with the shaman, but ultimately it is just Germanic religion, albeit seen from a particular angle. Since a shaman or priest operates within Germanic religion, what he sees is ultimately the same as any Germanic folk religionist; he is as much a polytheist, animist, fetishist, totemist as any other Germanic person; so, he cannot be seen in isolation.

There is, in the end, no distinction between Germanic shamanism, animism, polytheism, fetishism, totemism; they all belong to the same system, even though they are particular angles of looking at the same thing. It can therefore be safely concluded that in the Germanic context, shamanism is nothing but a synonym of Germanic religiosity.

Click here to access the article titled Bog Worship Among the Germanic Peoples.

Article synopsis: The logic behind bog worship is explored. Germanic theology legitimises the view that the Gods can assume any body of nature. This may be termed the fetishistic principle or the principle of divine immanence, which is why the worship of bogs and other bodies of water can be predicted for Germanic sacrificial religion.

Written by Dyami Millarson

This article narrates the history of the Amish as follows: “In the 1400s the printing press revolutionized Europe, enabling mass distribution of printed material fast. The Reformation roiled Europe in the 1500s, in no small measure due to Gutenberg’s invention. In the wake of Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli came a variety of sects, including the radical Anabaptists, who believed in adult baptism and strict separation of church and state. In 1693 the Anabaptists splintered into three sects, including the followers of one Jakob Ammann. They called themselves Amish.”

Before the emergence of the sects after the Reformation, there was the Schism between the Western and Eastern Church. And yet before that, there was a variety of different early movements such as Arianism. (As a quick introduction to the various historical sectarian developments of Judeo-Christianity, one may take a quick look at this Wikipedia page.) Judeo-Christianity has a long history of sectarianism as a result of different interpretations of God. These doctrinal differences amounted or amount to different Gods, and together they constitute polytheism.

One way to enforce doctrinal unity was through the sword, but this was not always possible. Eventually this became entirely unfashionable, particularly aftet the advent of the printing press in Europe. In the context of this less violently restrictive environment, new sectarian splits within Judeo-Christianity could increase exponentially. Therefore, it can be said that many new Gods emerged. However, even in pre-Reformation times the amount of Gods in Judeo-Christianity only increased as the amount of Saints ever grew. It was never a non-polytheistic system; for even before the belief in Saints, there was already the belief in angels and demons, which also clearly amounted to polytheism. Furthermore, the Judeo-Christian Scripture itself hints in multiple places at a multitude of Gods, but emphasises the supremity of one particular God.

Written by Dyami Millarson

It is possible that the Germanic Creator Trinity (or Trinities) is actually one Deity, namely Othin (see this article). Plato considers that one Deity the demiurge, i.e. the Primordial Craftsman or Primordial Creator (Dutch: oerschepper). If the Gods are the creations of one God or trace their descent to one common divine ancestor, then they are equally legitimate; on that basis, we can only affirm that these beings, who are not as old as the Primordial Creator, are, by their very nature, as equally deserving of being called Gods as the Primordial Creator. All Gods are Creators, because all Gods inherently possess creative potential, just as all humans do; consequently, after the Primordial Creator produced many Gods somehow, there ceased to be only one Divine Creator. After the cessation of the primordial situation where there was only a single creative being, creation ceased to be monopolised; the creation of other beings like oneself inevitably leads to the cessation of the monopoly on creation. The Primordial Creator invariably creates beings in its own image; this is the natural theme of reproduction, because the Primordial Creator has the magical ability to reproduce through creation. After all, creation and reproduction are closely linked.

Followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam assert that one God created all and that the creations of this one Deity are sacred. As a logical consequence, they must also believe that the other Gods, which peoples from around the wotkd believe in, are created by one Deity. Since all Gods must be creations of the one God, they must be sacred creations. After all, the process of creation is sacred, and therefore what is created is held sacred. Since monotheists assert that one God created everything, they cannot escape that other Gods are also sacred creations of God. Either that, or the one God did not create everything and is not as all-powerful as claimed.

Thus, either monotheism regards itself as inevitably creating polytheism, or it rejects polytheism as having nothing to do with itself, in which case it chooses to abolish itself. Out of self-preservation, monotheism needs to openly admit to some link with polytheism. Some 19th-century monotheists ascribed to the idea that monotheism is the father of polytheism, as they claimed that peoples must originally have been monotheist and then became polytheist. Yet other people living in the 19th-century suggested on evolutionary grounds that polytheism preceded monotheism, and that monotheism was simply a more advanced evolutionary stage; in other words, polytheism is the mother of monotheism. Monotheism cannot define itself without polytheism; it tries to define itself as opposed to polytheism, but is ultimately part of the human polytheist ecosystem. Polytheism does not need to define itself as opposed to monotheism because it is the original situation; monotheism sprang originally out of polytheism, and was originally a young revolutionary sect opposed to polytheism which was elder. The original state of human religiosity is polytheism, and humans are constantly returning to that original state, hence monotheism has to define itself as opposed to polytheism, and will always inevitably have a relationship with polytheism, even to the point that, despite all efforts to define itself as different, monotheism always still ends up being fundamentally indistinct from polytheism (see previous article).

In any case, if one believes that one God created all other Gods, then rejecting the other Gods means rejecting God’s creations. Therefore, the thesis of the all-powerful Deity runs into the issue where rejecting other Deities delegitimises itself; if some creations are illegitimate and others are legitimate, then God is not infallible. Therefore, creating other Gods must be part of an infallible plan, and rejecting belief in those Gods must consequently be rejection of an infallible plan. In other words, monotheism cannot escape polytheism; there is no way for monotheism to deal with the reality of polytheism except for embracing polytheism, and coming to terms with the self-debunking of monotheism. The situation of monotheism is actually both believing in multiple Gods and claiming to believe in only one God; this means that monotheism is in reality anti-polytheistic polytheism.

However, being anti-polytheistic is being anti-creation, because polytheism is the inevitable result of creation (which I explained in my previous article). So either creation is sacred because it comes from God or it is not sacred because it does not come from God, and if polytheism is not the result of one Deity responsible for all creation, then polytheism must be the result of another Deity or other Deities, and in that case, there is a primordial polytheism, which birthed polytheism and monotheism. We were not there during the primordial situation and so all we can do is reason logically. Whilst it is relevant to philosophise logically about this primordial situation, we have to take into account the present situation as well, where polytheism is the ultimate reality; and as I have explained here, monotheism plus monotheism is still polytheism. Even if there were only multiple purely monotheistic religions and sects, there would still be polytheism; the plurality of monotheisms amounts to polytheism, or in arithmetic terms, the sum of monotheistic religions equals polytheism.

Written by Dyami Millarson

Encyclopedia Britannica says in its entry on polytheism: “Polytheism characterizes virtually all religions other than Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which share a common tradition of monotheism, the belief in one God.” Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not really exceptions to the general rule that religions tend to be animistic-polytheistic; for the aforementioned religions include belief in angels and demons. Belief in a multitude of supernatural beings is endemic to all ancient religions. From the ancient polytheist perspective, angels and demons meet the definition of Gods, since they are supernatural beings. Followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam even describe the Gods of polytheists as such beings, confirming that angels and demons are indeed what the ancient polytheists would consider Gods.

Moreover, these beings which followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam believe in are, undoubtledly, supernatural beings and polytheism constitutes, ultimately, belief in a multitude of supernatural beings. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not religions which claim there is only one supernatural being; it is not “monosupernaturalism,” i.e. belief in a single supernatural being. However, they claim there is a supreme supernatural being ruling over the other supernatural beings. It meets, without a doubt, the definition of animism-polytheism. Wondering about the definition of what Gods are helps us comprehend animism-polytheism. So what are Gods? What are Divine Beings? They are supernatural beings; simultaneously, They are spiritual beings. Likewise, if God is not supernatural, then that is not God; God is, by definition, a supernatural being. Polytheism has an inextricable relationship with animism; for, to the ancients, Gods are Spirits and vice versa. This overlap of the divine, spiritual, and supernatural can be clearly seen in the Chinese term 神 (shén) which means ‘God, Spirit, Soul, Supernatural Being, Magical Being,’ and which serves as a reflection of the nature of polytheism.

Artificial distinctions between the divine, spiritual, and supernatural can be attempted, but these distinctions are certainly not ancient. Furthermore, a definition of polytheism which does not accept the ancient overlap between the aforementioned three aspects is useless; because Gods in polytheistic religions are inherently spiritual and supernatural. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam cannot escape this either; for their Gods are inherently spiritual and supernatural as well. After all, the Gods of polytheistic religions can be identified with angels and demons, which are supernatural beings that Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in, and the angels and demons of superficially “monotheistic” religions can be identified with the Gods of polytheistic religions, which, in conclusion, makes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam polytheistic as well, and therefore they are no exceptions.

The distinction between monotheism and polytheism is based on a false dichotomy; there is only theism, which embraces the plurality of the supernatural. Human religiosity is simply inherently polytheistic; there is no way to escape the notion that since ancient times, to be human is to be polytheistic. Not even monotheists can escape being human. After all, nobody believes in “monoanthropism,” i.e. that all humans are one, but everyone believes “polyanthropism,” i.e. that humans are many. There cannot be one soul underlying all humans, all humans are distinguished by soul according to human beliefs since ancient times, and thus plurality is linked with animism-polytheism. Furthermore, worshipping one supernatural being, as monotheists claim to be doing, may realistically also be made sense of as ultimately worshipping a collective, because humans can use grammatical singulars in their languages to refer to something that is actually plural in reality. We can likewise refer to languages as “language” even if we mean multiple languages. The reality of plurality is a rule of nature which religion must obey; for religion is but a reflection of nature. Consequently, religion simply cannot be mono-something but only poly-something, no matter how hard believers try otherwise; the universe simply forbids the mono-something because such is not congruent with the plurality of the universe. One can try worshipping only one God, but one will still always end up believing in multiple Gods, i.e. a plurality of supernatural beings. Worship of one suprrnatural being does not negate belief in multuple supernatural beings.

We can analyse stars in the universe as Creator Gods; for stars are magical objects associated with gravity. We can say there are countless creators since there are countless stars. If the Big Bang truly occurred, then it created countless Creator Gods, who would go on to create planets with gravity. Creation continues after the Big Bang because there are many stars. Only in the beginning could there perhaps be a mono-situation, but the further we get removed from the beginning, the more the poly-situation develops; we cannot return to the mono-situation and the poly-situation is an inevitability. Since such a poly-situation is inevitably created even if the starting point may be a mono-situation, plurality is apparently sacred; for if the plurality is created by a singularity, then the plurality is also divine, spiritual, and supernatural as it pertains to the singularity — the relationship between plurality and singularity, supposed in this case, makes it inevitably so. The aforementioned singularity can also be identified with fate, i.e. an inorganic force which created all beings including supernatural beings. But plurality can also be recursive; when we try tracing the origin of plurality, there may also be eternal plurality.

Life may have started with a single organism, but may also have started with a multitude of similar organisms which sprang into existence simultaneously, but either way, we cannot deny that life is synonymous with plurality today. No matter the origin of plurality, i.e. regardkess of whether the source of plurality is primordial singularity or recursive plurality, plurality is, without a doubt, the truth of the universe in which we now live, and this plurality must be linked with the divine, supernatural, and spiritual as it is linked with (continuing) creation. We can refer to all organisms with the collective noun life as a collective noun, and likewise we can refer to all human beings as man, mankind or humanity, each of which is a singulare tantum (= a grammatically singular-only form), and likewise we can refer to all supernatural beings as “God,” “Godkind” or “the Divine,” but such language tricks do not change the fact that there is underlying plurality. Gods will always be plural, so will humans and stars. Unless, of course, Gods, humans and stars die out; but as long as they continue to thrive, there will always be many and not just one. After all, plurality is a sign of success in our cosmos; Gods, humans, and stars multiply successfully. Since With each deviating definition of God, a new sectarian split is created in Christianity, for example, and since that a different definition of God means one is fundamentally not worshipping the same God, a new God is worshipped by the new sect; Judeo-Christianity keeps producing new Supreme Gods (see here), and therefore even at the higher level, it contributes to the inevitable further development of polytheism which is not unlike the inevitable expansion of our universe. Christianity moves forward in time like all religions, so it cannot help but create new Gods. The principle underlying animism-polytheism is that as time progresses, only more Gods spring into being; the totality of Gods ever known to man only keeps expanding with time.

Expansion is a recurring theme in the universe; in the end, everything either expands or dies, which is also why our terrestrial ecosystem must and should expand to other planets, and humans, as the deputies of the Gods and as protectors and leaders of all organisms on Earth, have a moral duty towards all life on Earth to help our terrestrial ecosystem expand to other planets in our solar system and beyond. We must expand the beauty of nature found on our Earth, i.e. the living kind of nature, to other barren wastelands; plants and animals must grow on distant plants everywhere. We have the moral duty to seed life everywhere; for expanding plurality is the rule of the universe. Nature, as we know it on Earth, should reach the furthest corners of the galaxy, and eventually expand to the rest of the entire universe. Nature must grow, and only if we spread the spirits of nature everywhere, we as humans will be rewarded by the Gods for our stewardship over all life, which mirrors the stewardship over nature by the Gods; in such manner, humans can live in harmony with all stars, Gods, and organisms of the cosmos, and that is why humans have a huge moral responsibility.

Written by Dyami Millarson

William A. Craigie says on pages 24-26 of The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia: “[A]n image of Frey, which was worshipped at Thrandheim in Norway, had been sent there from Sweden. The story of Gunnar Helming also makes mention of an image of Frey in Sweden which was carried about the country, and to which sacrifices were offered […]. […] The frequent occurrence of Frey- in Swedish (and Danish) place-names […] indicates the prevalence of the [worship tradition] in both of these countries. The worship of Frey, however, must also have been very popular in Norway, from which it passed to Iceland with the early settlers. As late as 998 the men of Thrandheim are represented as refusing to break their image of Frey at the command of King Olaf, ‘because we have long served [H]im and [H]e has done well by us. He often talked with us, and told us things to come, and gave us peace and plenty.’ In Iceland itself the traces of a popular [worship tradition] of Frey are very clear, and more than one prominent person mentioned in the sagas bears the title of Freys-goði, or ‘priest of Frey.’ Of one of these, Thorgrím, brother-in-law of Gísli Súrsson, the saga says that ‘he intended to hold a festival at the beginning of winter, and greet the winter, and sacrifice to Frey.’ When Thorgrím was murdered, and had been laid in a grave-mound, it was noticed that snow never lay on the south or west sides of the mound, and the ground never froze there: ‘and it was supposed that he was so highly esteemed by Frey for the offerings he made to [H]im, that the [G]od did not wish it to freeze between them.’ Great attachment to this [D]eity also appears in the story of Hrafnkel, who loved no other [G]od more than Frey, and gave to [H]im joint possession with himself of all his most valuable things. Among these was a horse, which on that account bore the name of Freyfaxi. Another Freyfaxi belonged to Brand in Vatnsdal, and most people believed that he had a religious reverence for the horse. Horses owned by Frey are also mentioned as existing in Thrandheim […].”

Written by Dyami Millarson

Saxō Grammāticus says: “Sīquidem propitiandōrum nūminum grātia Frō deō rem dīvīnam furvīs hostiīs fēcit. […] Frōblōt Sueonēs vocant.” (Indeed, for the sake of the propitiation of the Gods, he did a divine thing to the black [sacrificial] victims for the God Frō. […] The Swedes call [it] Frōblōt.)

On pages 24-25 of The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia, William A. Craigie paraphrases the same quote as follows: “Saxo Grammaticus, speaking of a sacrifice of black oxen offered to Frey by the […] hero Hading, adds that this had continued to be a yearly custom, and ‘the Swedes call it Fröblod [sic],’ i.e. Frey’s sacrifice.”

Furvus means black, dark. One may compare this to the colour of the Svartálfar and Dökkálfar, which I discussed in this article. One may also recall that black cats are associated with bad luck in modern folk belief, and that cats are the animals of Freyr’s sister, Freyja.

The Circassians traditionally sacrifice black animals for the New Year. In chapter VIII of the book Adyghe Khabze: Customs and Traditions under the section “Making Sacrifices to the Fire of the Hearth,” Kadir I. Natho says: “Depending on the wealth of the family, they sacrificed a ram or a large cattle that was black.”

Monumental Sources Quoting from the Same Passage of Saxō Grammāticus

• Johannes Scheffer also quotes from the same passage of Saxō Grammāticus on page 118 of his book on Upsala; that page is part of 9th chapter which Scheffer dedicates to the Gods of Uppsala (Upsaliae diīs).
• The same quote is found on page 275 of the third volume of this German work. Here it is spelled as Frô.
• Petersen quotes from the same passage in footnote 1 on page 92 of this Danish work. He writes Frō with the vowel ø.
• A quote from the same passage is found on page 166 of the 15th issue of this Swedish journal. Here Frō is written with the vowel ö.
• Adalbert Kuhn quotes from the same passage in a footnote on page 136 of the second volume of his folk religious studies (written in German). Here it is written Frö.

Scrīptum ā Dyami Millarson

Haec sunt genera Deōrum apud Nordmannōs:

• Æsir, Mundōrum Geniī (Rēgēsque Hūmānitātis Nordicae),
• Vanir, Venerēs,
• Álfar, Geniī Albī,
• Ręgin, Conciliātōrēs Dīvī,
• Tívar, Dī Caelestēs,
• Goð, Dī Lībātī Sanguine,
• Dvergar, Opificī Dīvī,
• Ormar, Vermēs Venēnōsī,
• Jötnar, Geniī Quī Hominēs Edunt.

Vidē etiam hunc articulum meum et hunc articulum meum.

Written by Dyami Millarson

Considering the consonants and vowel of the North Germanic root Van-, the two etymological options are thus:

• A connection with the etymological cluster of Shire Frisian wenne accustom, get accustomed and waan delusion. The meaning of waan used to be more neutral. This can be illustrated with Middle Dutch waan which means ‘imagination, feeling.’  
• A connection with the Shire Frisian prefix wan- as in wandied misdeed, wanhoop desparation, and wantastân unenviable, reproachable situation.

The second option is related to Old Nordic vanr deficient. The first option is related to the etymological cluster of Old Nordic vanr accustomed, vani custom, vęnja custom, and vęnja accustom. We can already observe that there are two instances of vanr in Old Nordic, which we can only distinguish semantically. Furthermore, as it so turns out, Vanr is the singular of the plural Vanir.

The connection of Vanr with the homonymous vanr seems really strong, but the question is: which sense of the adjective vanr is the theonym Vanir related to? If Vanr is related to vanr in the sense of deficient, then it means the one who lacks something, but if Vanr is related to vanr in the sense of accustomed, then it means the one who is accustomed or the like. The Vanir are obviously not Gods of Want or Deficiency, but of Plenty; for Njörth, father of Freyja and Freyr, is the God of Wealth. So, they must be the Gods of Customs, linked with the adjective vanr accustomed. They are the manifestations of old cherished traditions; they are the personhood in tradition.

The Vanir may be functionally compared with the Vedic Aryama(n) who is a Deity of Customs and one of the Adityas, which means He is connected with the sun (see page 349 of this book). One Hindu blogger writes in an article on Aryaman: “Aryaman maintains the code of conduct in the society. He protects the honor of men and women in the society. He has the last word in marriages and in the maintenance of tradition, custom and religion in the Vedic society. All rituals, relationships created and maintained in society are governed by Aryaman.”

Since we have interpreted Vanir as connected with Old Nordic vanr accustomed, vani custom, vęnja custom, and vęnja accustom, we can further connect Vanir with the Old Nordic yndi (< *vund-) ‘delight,’ vinr ‘friend,’ ósk (< *vonsk-) ‘wish,’ œskja (< *vonskj-), ‘wish,’ vinna ‘accomplish,’ undr (< *vund-) ‘miracle, wonder,’ and una (< *vun-) ‘dwell,’ which may be presumed to come from the same Indogermanic root as the etymological cluster to which Old Nordic vanr accustomed belongs. Furthermore, we may link Vanir with Latin venerārī ‘worship, adore’ and Venerēs, which the Roman Poet Catull invokes when he sings: “Ō Venerēs Cupidinēsque!” (O Venuses and Cupids!) Venerēs is the plural of Venus, the Goddess of Love. This page of a website dedicated to ancient literature explains: “It is interesting that Catullus refers to them in plural form as proper nouns. There was only one Roman Venus and Cupid, but Catullus is referring to several of them. He may be addressing several gods and goddesses of love.”

Although the adjective vanr accustomed is by no means directly associated with love in Germanic, we may still perceive the Vanir as Venerēs because Freyja plays a prominent role as a Goddess of Love, and we may compare Freyja with Venus. I assume that Venus comes from Indogermanic *wénh₁os, which should correspond to *wenaz in Ancient Germanic, which should correspond to *venr in Old Nordic. Old Nordic vanr accustomed apparently comes from Indogermanic *wónh₁os, which corresponds to *wanaz in Ancient Germanic. This mean that Venus and Vanir are similar formations, but the two seem to go back to different Indogermanic forms, which are ultimately etymologically related. The Indogermanic sense of ‘love’ must, therefore, be a distant memory just like the Indogermanic sense of ‘white’ is for Álfar and the Indogermanic sense of ‘sky’ is for Tívar.

In the Germanic context, the Vanir are associated with a semantic web relating to customs; this understanding of Vanir is of primary importance, since the speakers of Germanic languages could easily have used folk etymology to connect the Vanir with customs. A connection with customs also makes sense; a custom is also also a form of expressing love and a custom may be viewed as doing what you love. How should we imagine the connection of the Vanir with customs? For instance, just like the Indian God of Customs is associated with oaths, the Norsemen used to swear oaths to Freyr on the bristles of a sacrificial boar. Craigie quotes a passage from Hęrvarar Saga on pages 27-28 of The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia as follows: “King Heidrek sacrificed to Frey; he should give to him the largest boar that could be got. They considered it so holy, that over its bristles they took an oath about all important matters. That boar was sacrificed by way of an atonement; on Christmas eve it was led into the hall before the king, and men then laid their hands on its bristles and made their vows.”