gods odin,thor

I didn't disagree with you when saying monotheism arrived recently, i disagreed with you saying that every religion in Europe pre Christianity was polytheistic.
I'm genuinely interested in knowing about a monotheistic pre-christian religion in europe.
Don't know what this has to with Norse paganism.
nothing, just responding to the conspiracy theory comment.
 
I'm genuinely interested in knowing about a monotheistic pre-christian religion in europe.
nothing, just responding to the conspiracy theory comment.
Read carefully, in my last post i said that ANIMISM was practiced in europe before polytheism, go back and read my post. Polytheism hasnt been around for that long, probably only 10000 years, before this as hunter gatherers all humans believed that the spirit world is in everthing around us( Animism ). Human history in Europe goes back 40000 years, to say that one religious form ( Polytheism ) was the only one practiced up until 2000 years ago, is ridiculous.
 
Another theism most likely in Europe during the paleolithic was Shamanism, this was probably the dominant type during the Aurignacian and Gravettian periods, as attested by their artifacts, like the lion man figurine. This imagery mirrors the beliefs in shamanism and the spirit world, this hybrid between a man and a lion, seems very likely to have been discovered through a vision of some sort, but this is just my theory. This imagery also shows similarities between the Cree people in Canada, who have historically practiced shamanism, and their beliefs in transformations. Read this article, if you have any knowledge of the artifacts discovered form the European paleolithic you'll be able to make connections, or perhaps not, just my opinion.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/religion-of-aboriginal-people
Also im trying to find a connection between a figure like Odin and Shamanism, one can extract a few theories but none i am confident enough to talk about at this moment, need to do more research.
aurign3.jpg
 
i imagine the pre germanic i1 worshipped some kind of storm deity
 
This is a great thread, im really interested in Odin and his origins. I was looking into norse mythology and other northern Germanic pagan religions, and the origins
and relationships are very hard to determine to say the least. There is also much creidence to believe that many cultural figures in our modern day, are believed to stem from these religions. Another point that can back up some Norse figures, like Odin, were worshipped in european prehistory, is that the Germanic languages are believed to have a substrate that is non indo european, and many words and structures in germanic languages are non indo european. I theorize that the germanic pagan religions could also contain elements of pre indo european religions, just like the languages.

That is a great point. If many pre-Indo-European words remained, it makes sense that some of the culture, religion, and traditions did as well. Especially if we assume that Germanic people are more Cro-Magnon/Paleolithic European genetically than Indo-European.
 
Read carefully, in my last post i said that ANIMISM was practiced in europe before polytheism, go back and read my post. Polytheism hasnt been around for that long, probably only 10000 years, before this as hunter gatherers all humans believed that the spirit world is in everthing around us( Animism ). Human history in Europe goes back 40000 years, to say that one religious form ( Polytheism ) was the only one practiced up until 2000 years ago, is ridiculous.

animism is polytheistic, unless you worship only one animal, but that's unlikely. Hunter-gatherer societies are usually animistic, because their lifes depend on the animals they have to hunt; if they kill too many of one animal, they cause an imbalance in the ecosystem and endanger their own lives in the long term. Native Americans are a good example of that (cult of the eagle, bear etc), but it wouldn't make sense for them to just stick to one animal as their only god.
 
As the more warlike hg R mindset "rubbed off" on the I1 Norse and they left the fertility based religious practices-- a new group would have gelled. This would be the beginning of the Germanic tribes as we now understand them.

I hypothesize that the fertility aspects never fully went away, that the Norse relied on especially Thor for victory in battle. There are accounts of the Norsemen striking during a storm which would further freak out their opponents and give them what now read like supernatural powers.

Northern Germanic tribes also painted themselves black before battle (I think they attacked at night) and this would also terrify the intended target. My thought is that the Norse paid much closer attention to the timing of their attacks than other groups (time of day, weather, season, moon cycle) because they understood much of the battle is won before it begins. Fear is a powerful force, make the other guy fight it.

**EDIT** I also don't think the early hg R knew what they were getting involved with by teaching I1 the art of war. Little did they know that the student would surpass the teacher...

The great part about all of this entire thread is that there is no way to verify any aspect of this debate. We have only the fog of ancient myth, which is open to interpretation.

**EDIT II** That man-tiger or man-lion comparison might be off. Bear. Look into bear and it's importance for these peoples.
 
Last edited:
animism is polytheistic, unless you worship only one animal, but that's unlikely. Hunter-gatherer societies are usually animistic, because their lifes depend on the animals they have to hunt; if they kill too many of one animal, they cause an imbalance in the ecosystem and endanger their own lives in the long term. Native Americans are a good example of that (cult of the eagle, bear etc), but it wouldn't make sense for them to just stick to one animal as their only god.
my good lord i suspected that you didnt really know what you were talking about, but to not know the difference between Polytheism and Animism is pretty sad, considering your still defending your uninformed view. please take a class in religious philosophy go online and do some research, i really see no point in arguing with you at this point, until you can adquetly defend your argument without splitting hairs.
 
That is a great point. If many pre-Indo-European words remained, it makes sense that some of the culture, religion, and traditions did as well. Especially if we assume that Germanic people are more Cro-Magnon/Paleolithic European genetically than Indo-European.
Thank you, finally were getting back on topic. I agree with your point, an example i can give to support your argument would be the metis people. Even though their patrilineal lines are european about 75% of their genetic composition is indigenous american, at least historically. Even though their religion is catholic and language a creole, their culture and myths are indigenous.
 
**EDIT II** That man-tiger or man-lion comparison might be off. Bear. Look into bear and it's importance for these peoples.
Not really sure how you mean, nobody knows exactly what these peoples believed, as this figurine dates to 30000 years ago. I was trying to prove a correlation to shamanism, could you elaborate on how i was off. The first practice of shamanism is believed to be in Europe.
 
my good lord i suspected that you didnt really know what you were talking about, but to not know the difference between Polytheism and Animism is pretty sad, considering your still defending your uninformed view. please take a class in religious philosophy go online and do some research, i really see no point in arguing with you at this point, until you can adquetly defend your argument without splitting hairs.

what is sad is to bring up animism out of desperation, when asked for an example of monotheism in pre-christian europe. Polytheism = many gods, and animism fits that profile. Whether you continue to argue or not is your business.
 
what is sad is to bring up animism out of desperation, when asked for an example of monotheism in pre-christian europe. Polytheism = many gods, and animism fits that profile. Whether you continue to argue or not is your business.
in animism one specific animal contains a spirit that is connected to the entirety of the spirit world, that animal is not a god in itself. in Polytheism there are specific Gods who are characterized by specific traits and are beleived to be responsible for certain phenomena. Do I really have to teach you an entire course here.If you are so adaminte to defend this, give me one source that says animism is a type of polythiesm.
Also if youd notice i also brought up shamanism as a pre polythiestic religion so what else do you want to see to disprove your uninformed views.
 
in animism one specific animal contains a spirit that is connected to the entirety of the spirit world, that animal is not a god in itself. in Polytheism there are specific Gods who are characterized by specific traits and are beleived to be responsible for certain phenomena. Do I really have to teach you an entire course here.If you are so adaminte to defend this, give me one source that says animism is a type of polythiesm.
Also if youd notice i also brought up shamanism as a pre polythiestic religion so what else do you want to see to disprove your uninformed views.

You're not disproving anything, just playing with words to get away from getting caught not having an example of monotheism in pre-christian europe.
There are 3 possibilities: (no god),(1 god) or (many gods). You're saying shamanism and animism are in the (no god) category. Well, they would be if they had no supernatural beings; once you have supernatural beings, you have gods. The only way to get out of that is to say not all supernatural beings are gods, but then we're just playing with words and splitting hairs.
 
You're not disproving anything, just playing with words to get away from getting caught not having an example of monotheism in pre-christian europe.
There are 3 possibilities: (no god),(1 god) or (many gods). You're saying shamanism and animism are in the (no god) category. Well, they would be if they had no supernatural beings; once you have supernatural beings, you have gods. The only way to get out of that is to say not all supernatural beings are gods, but then we're just playing with words and splitting hairs.
im pretty sure anybody who knows anything about the study of religious philosopies knows this definition of theisms is incorrect , but go ahead and believe it, clearly i cant make you look up anything other than your own opinion. Also its quite funny how you said i was splitting hairs, when your entire argument is based on that. Still it seems that all this argument has become is who will get the last word
so really is there any point in carrying this on, why dont you post something about the actual topic instead of squabbling over a definition
 
im pretty sure anybody who knows anything about the study of religious philosopies knows this definition of theisms is incorrect

I present simple logic which is completely ignored by vaguely calling upon mainstream authority on the subject. I guess there is no point continuing this argument.
 
maybe the vanir is reopresentation of the native and the asir is representtaion of the indo-europeans
 
maybe the vanir is reopresentation of the native and the asir is representtaion of the indo-europeans

I just found this on wikipedia: "the Vanir appear to have mainly been connected with cultivation and fertility and the Æsir were connected with power and war".

If that bit of information is actually true, then you might be onto something. Paleolithic Europeans are widely known for their matriarchal fertility-oriented societies, while Indo-Europeans were obviously known for conquest and war (use of chariots, bronze weapons).
 
maybe the vanir is reopresentation of the native and the asir is representtaion of the indo-europeans
Very good theory, seems very plausible. Its pretty great when you get some tangible results from a thread, so back to the original question, we can probably agree that people who had first conceptualized Odin or a figure like him, were most
likely in europe during the paleolithic or mesolithic, with this in mind it seems quite possible that the majority of their Y dna was I.
 
Anthro- regarding the illustration you posted, I think you were onto something showing the human/animal hybrid figurine and that this type of thinking probably played an important role in how these people referenced their surroundings and their place in it. However, I don't think the animal was supposed to be a lion, a cougar, or a tiger though. I think the animal was a bear.

And I was of the opinion the scholars had Odin belonging to hg R peoples.
 
Anthro- regarding the illustration you posted, I think you were onto something showing the human/animal hybrid figurine and that this type of thinking probably played an important role in how these people referenced their surroundings and their place in it. However, I don't think the animal was supposed to be a lion, a cougar, or a tiger though. I think the animal was a bear.

And I was of the opinion the scholars had Odin belonging to hg R peoples.
Ah, ok, the name that archeologists gave it was the lion man, however i agree with you seems more probable that it was a bear, it seems like a very important animal
to our paleolithic ancestors as you refrenced in your previous quote, but it could also be a smilodon. Thanks for clearing that up.
 

This thread has been viewed 52881 times.

Back
Top