Odinist Fellowship Threatens to Continue Protests until Demands are Met

[Sanzbir]

Ralph Harrison, Director of Odinist Fellowship and leader of British pagans, had sent a letter to Justin Welby , Archbishop of Canterbury, demanding they 'return' two church buildings. Harrison claims the properties were stolen from pagans about 1,300 years back. Over 1,000 pagans are members of the Fellowship.

Thoughts??

Personally I find it a bit ridiculous, given the history of the region and Christians and Odinists in it.

I'm well versed in my genealogy, and I am descended from the Norse who came and raided England before settling down in Ireland and Iceland following the battle of Hafrsfjord that unified Norway (and expelled anyone who was against Harald Fairhair). And... with those Odinist ancestors of mine I can't really say that discrimination between these two religions was one sided.

One ancestor of mine carved a blood eagle into a petty king's back offering him as a sacrifice to Odin. He further went on to martyr an Anglo-Saxon Christian saint. Not to mention all the church-looting my ancestors did. It just seems like the discrimination went both ways, and that both sides should just let it go by now.

So should the church give the Odinists the land??

If so, should the Odinists apologize for my great-great-great-great-etc grandpa Ivar literally martyring Christian clergymen??

 

[Brickjectivity]

It could be a publicity stunt.

 

[Jumi]

One ancestor of mine carved a blood eagle into a petty king's back offering him as a sacrifice to Odin.

It's highly doubtful that the blood eagle was a real ritual, but more of poetic expression.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I see it as a culture reclaiming itself. Certainly nothing too outrageous.

 

[Sanzbir]

It's highly doubtful that the blood eagle was a real ritual, but more of poetic expression.

I don't know man. The Norse Sagas aren't exactly historical, (I mean my great-great-great-etc grandpa Ragnar most certainly didn't kill a dragon) but I've seen enough of my own ancestors recorded in the Norse Sagas as having performed the deed that it seems likely it was a thing.

Even if the Norse sources can't be trusted, the Norse and Anglo-Saxon sources agree that my ancestor Ivar tied a priest to a pole and used him as target practice.

My ancestor Haakon, while never operating in England and while being a defender of freedom of religion in certain respects, also is recorded, by skalds who were loyal to him even, as having sacrificed human beings to Odin.

So at the very least we know there was some element of human sacrifice practiced. Whether or not the blood eagle itself existed is up for debate, but again, I've seen it mentioned often enough in the sagas of my ancestors, and to explicit detail, that I'd wager it was real.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The initial mention of a blood eagle was for King Ælle, when the sons of Ragnar avenged their father. It more than likely describes them leaving him face-down on the battle field for the eagles (or vultures, more likely) to tear at his back. Other mentioning of a blood eagle have no credible or archeological basis, and are generally accepted as "Christian boogy-tales" of those big, bad heathens.

Doubtless, humans captured or defeated in war were sacrificed to Odin, in celebration of victory. But the blood eagle is probably rubbish; sacrifices to Odin would have been hanged, anyways--one of the reasons he's called the god of the gallows.

 

[Nakosis]

Ralph Harrison, Director of Odinist Fellowship and leader of British pagans, had sent a letter to Justin Welby , Archbishop of Canterbury, demanding they 'return' two church buildings. Harrison claims the properties were stolen from pagans about 1,300 years back. Over 1,000 pagans are members of the Fellowship.

Thoughts??

Personally I find it a bit ridiculous, given the history of the region and Christians and Odinists in it.

I'm well versed in my genealogy, and I am descended from the Norse who came and raided England before settling down in Ireland and Iceland following the battle of Hafrsfjord that unified Norway (and expelled anyone who was against Harald Fairhair). And... with those Odinist ancestors of mine I can't really say that discrimination between these two religions was one sided.

One ancestor of mine carved a blood eagle into a petty king's back offering him as a sacrifice to Odin. He further went on to martyr an Anglo-Saxon Christian saint. Not to mention all the church-looting my ancestors did. It just seems like the discrimination went both ways, and that both sides should just let it go by now.

So should the church give the Odinists the land??

If so, should the Odinists apologize for my great-great-great-great-etc grandpa Ivar literally martyring Christian clergymen??

Well this made me smile...

"Gods are not viewed as masters but as powerful allies and as excellent friends."

My God is an excellent bud.

"we will persist ever more vocally in our just demands until at last they are met."

How can Christianity possible hold out against such oppression?

 

[Sanzbir]

The initial mention of a blood eagle was for King Ælle, when the sons of Ragnar avenged their father.

To my knowledge, yes, the first reference was in Sigvatr's Knutsdrapa.

It more than likely describes them leaving him face-down on the battle field for the eagles (or vultures, more likely) to tear at his back.

Having read the source material, it's really hard to draw that interpretation from the Ragnars Saga Loðbrókar ok sona hans which references the original source, the Knutsdrapa which also is rather hard to interpret in the way you describe:

They now had the eagle cut in Ella’s back, then all his ribs severed from the backbone with a sword, in such a way that his lungs were pulled out there. As Sighvat says in the poem Knutsdrapa: “Ivar, he who held court at York, had eagle hacked in Ella’s back.”

Since the original source describes it being "hacked" into Aella's back, it's really hard to justify that as having meant "left him for the eagles and birds".

(complete tangent, but the most bad*** byname I've seen that implies leaving enemies for the birds was Thorfinn "Raven-Feeder"... but that brings up another point, the Norse almost always reference ravens as the corpse-eating bird of choice, not eagles)

I've considered the idea that this might be less clear in the Old Norse. So I looked up alternate translations for: "Ok Ellu bak at lét hinns sat Ívarr ara Jórvík skorit." to see if anything seems like it could imply what you suggest, but the only two translations I can find are these two:

“Ivar, he who held court at York, had eagle hacked in Ella’s back.”
"And Ívarr, who resided at York, had Ælla’s back cut with an eagle."

So "cut with an eagle" or "eagle hacked in". Neither of which sound like they would be plausable for "killed on the battlefield and left for the eagles".

Going through the Old Norse dictionary I have doesn't seem to enable me to get any other sort of translation for this. Do you have any resources that provide a translation less explicit about the action performed??

Other mentioning of a blood eagle have no credible or archeological basis

That's fine, but the one credible instance you mention was the one I was referencing, being of the Uí Ímair stock.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

To my knowledge, yes, the first reference was in Sigvatr's Knutsdrapa.

Ok Ellu bak,
At lét hinn’s sat,
Ívarr, ara,
Iorví, skorit

And Ívarr, the one
who dwelt at York,
had Ella's back
cut with eagle.

That's from the Knútsdrápa. From the sound of it, it makes it more seem that a weapon was named "eagle". However it's also a skaldic poem, which are known to be cryptic and allusive. The historical authenticity of a "blood eagle" is all the more compounded in that in Norse imagery, the eagle (which covered all birds of prey and larger carrion birds,) was a symbol associated with blood and death. So it's just as likely that the verse in question means that Ivar killed Ælle by a deathblow in the back, which was bloody and fatal.

It's authenticity is also troublesome in that every mentioning of it was done several centuries after the Christianization of Scandinavia, lending credence to it's use as a literary device. Where it is interpreted as carrion birds feeding on the dead was introduced by Roberta Frank, who posed that it was originally a kenning before being taken literally by Christian skalds. She backs this up by comparison to the story of Saint Sebastian, who was allegedly shot so full of arrows that his internal organs could be seen. Which is practically impossible.

I think you as well are reading too far into it.

 

[Jumi]

I've seen it mentioned often enough in the sagas of my ancestors, and to explicit detail, that I'd wager it was real.

It's hard to know what was real, even if it sounds detailed. Such things were written down long after the events and by poets who had religious motives also. It's why historians don't really think of blood eagles as a thing. Ragnar himself is often thought of us a mythical person.

My ancestors fought your ancestors too. Mine had plenty of anti-viking measures in place, such as watch fires, chains to trap boats and long spears to poke them while they were trapped. They were also poor, but made good at trading with the "norse". Those are perhaps why they couldn't or wouldn't conquer us before they had converted to Christianity and crusaded us.

 

[Sanzbir]

That's from the Knútsdrápa. From the sound of it, it makes it more seem that a weapon was named "eagle".

Possibly. Ivar is recorded in sagas as preferring the bow and being a cripple, so it makes a death blow in battle seem unlikely. Death by execution with a weapon named "eagle" is a possibilty.

However it's also a skaldic poem, which are known to be cryptic and allusive. The historical authenticity of a "blood eagle" is all the more compounded in that in Norse imagery, the eagle (which covered all birds of prey and larger carrion birds,) was a symbol associated with blood and death. So it's just as likely that the verse in question means that Ivar killed Ælle by a deathblow in the back, which was bloody and fatal.

Possible.

It's authenticity is also troublesome in that every mentioning of it was done several centuries after the Christianization of Scandinavia, lending credence to it's use as a literary device.

I'm trying to see why it being mentioned later would prove it was a literary device. I'd assume earlier sources would be a closer proof that it was used as a literary device.

Do we have any pre-Christianization mention of a cutting with an eagle??

I've never seen such a thing, but then again there are many untranslated sagas and skalds that I could have missed.

One would think if it was a literary device used pre-Christianization that someone, somewhere, would have mentioned it in contemporary poems or writings.

Where it is interpreted as carrion birds feeding on the dead was introduced by Roberta Frank, who posed that it was originally a kenning before being taken literally by Christian skalds. She backs this up by comparison to the story of Saint Sebastian, who was allegedly shot so full of arrows that his internal organs could be seen. Which is practically impossible.

Okay... she points out that literary devices exist, which proves that this one specific other thing is a literary device??

Does she have any proof it was a kenning?? That's what I'd like to know. Is the kenning used anywhere else in the past??

Any sources or maybe direct writings you can link to her would be appreciated information on the subject, because what you present of her argument makes it seem like blind speculation, to be honest. I need concrete proofs of things to believe theories proposed.

Interesting theory, yes. Possible theory, of course. But some proof in there is needed to move it from a theory to a likelihood. Ultimately at the moment, with what you've presented, the kenning theory and the cut-the-shape-of-an-eagle-into-their-back theory seem equally probable.

Torturous execution and even mutilation is not an unknown for Ivar the Boneless based on the sources of his life, raids, and conquests.

I think you as well are reading too far into it.

I'd think Roberta Frank may be the one reading far too much into it, to be honest. I'm, after all, the one taking the text at the face value, while you and her are the ones thinking of all the hidden possible meanings therein.

 

[Ingledsva]

Ralph Harrison, Director of Odinist Fellowship and leader of British pagans, had sent a letter to Justin Welby , Archbishop of Canterbury, demanding they 'return' two church buildings. Harrison claims the properties were stolen from pagans about 1,300 years back. Over 1,000 pagans are members of the Fellowship.

Thoughts??

Personally I find it a bit ridiculous, given the history of the region and Christians and Odinists in it.

I'm well versed in my genealogy, and I am descended from the Norse who came and raided England before settling down in Ireland and Iceland following the battle of Hafrsfjord that unified Norway (and expelled anyone who was against Harald Fairhair). And... with those Odinist ancestors of mine I can't really say that discrimination between these two religions was one sided.

One ancestor of mine carved a blood eagle into a petty king's back offering him as a sacrifice to Odin. He further went on to martyr an Anglo-Saxon Christian saint. Not to mention all the church-looting my ancestors did. It just seems like the discrimination went both ways, and that both sides should just let it go by now.

So should the church give the Odinists the land??

If so, should the Odinists apologize for my great-great-great-great-etc grandpa Ivar literally martyring Christian clergymen??

Christianity purposely took over Pagan sites, usually destroying statues and temples, and building on top of them. In some case they destroyed the statues and art and moved into the Temples rededicating them to Christian Gods.

I doubt these people will get what they want, - however, - it is a great idea, and about time, to point out that the Christian church did this all over the "known" world. They destroyed ancient statues and art, ancient wisdom and knowledge,Temples, and whole cultures.

I would love to see some of the surviving Temples given back to the Pagans.

Perhaps we could start with Santa Maria Rotonda" (Pantheon) in Rome. They took out the Pagan Gods and Goddesses and put in Christian saints.

They think the notches along the top represent the lunar calendar, and that on special days such as the Winter Solstice, beams of light illuminate certain niches around the lower room.

*

 

[Sanzbir]

It's hard to know what was real, even if it sounds detailed. Such things were written down long after the events and by poets who had religious motives also. It's why historians don't really think of blood eagles as a thing. Ragnar himself is often thought of us a mythical person.

Oh yeah, Ragnar's probably just a story. Doing my genealogy there seems to be a gap between the supposed life of persons connected to Ivar the Boneless and the supposed life of Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye, with Ivar relatives existing a bit later in time than Sigurd's relatives.

It seems likely to me that real figures existed that inspired a later myths of the "Sons of Ragnar Lodbrok" which grouped a bunch of different men who lived at different times together.

Regardless, Ivar the Boneless appears to have been an actual person since he is mentioned in English and Irish records as well, and his grandson Sigtrygg One-Eye even went on to mint coins.

Did the blood eagle happen as the Norse sources record it?? No real definitive answer can be found, but brutal execution and mutilation DOES fit in with the other culture's stories about the man as well.

And sure, it's all written with a clear anti-Ivar bias (roughly, one of the Irish Annals that mention him was written with a bias in favor of Ivar's Irish ally Cerball), but it's not exactly hard to imagine that the leader of a band of invaders could have a predilection towards cruelty.

My ancestors fought your ancestors too. Mine had plenty of anti-viking measures in place, such as watch fires, chains to trap boats and long spears to poke them while they were trapped. They were also poor, but made good at trading with the "norse". Those are perhaps why they couldn't or wouldn't conquer us before they had converted to Christianity and crusaded us.

Ah, my ancestors fought my ancestors as well. That's the odd thing about being a Norse-Gael. Half my ancestors invaded the other and then were absorbed and assimilated into the culture of those ancestors.

Oh and my Kursi ancestors also fought the vikings. Specifically stealing their ships and then going raiding in Scandinavia. Lots of my ancestors fought each other, or so it seems.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Possibly. Ivar is recorded in sagas as preferring the bow and being a cripple, so it makes a death blow in battle seem unlikely.

Unless, of course, he was shot in the back or slain from horseback. Or even a chariot, as the TV show Vikings depicts Ivar driving.

I'm trying to see why it being mentioned later would prove it was a literary device.

A factor in maintaining Christianization was demonizing the past. Depicting or telling of something so bloody and barbaric serves this end.

Do we have any pre-Christianization mention of a cutting with an eagle?

Nope, making it very unlikely that such a method of execution and sacrifice to Odin was ever implemented.

One would think if it was a literary device used pre-Christianization that someone, somewhere, would have mentioned it in contemporary poems or writings.

Writings? Yes; it's been the subject of much debate and study. But why would anyone write a contemporary poem just to explain that the blood eagle was dramatic effect? They wouldn't. No more so than anyone would write a "Gospel of..." explaining all the literary devices and exaggerations in the Christian bible.

Any sources or maybe direct writings you can link to her would be appreciated information on the subject,

Roberta Frank's "Viking Atrocity and Skaldic Verse: The Rite of the Blood-Eagle" page 334. She even outlines how the tale grew bigger and more cruel:

"The past decade, apparently in order to include Kings Edmund and Maelguala among the blood-eagled, has expanded the basic torture to include foreplay (initial piercing with javelins or arrows), positioning (the victim lies face-downwards over a stone), and climax (beheading and death). The ceremony swells, accumulating preludes and sequels. History begins to acquire the narrative inclusiveness and brachiate structure of cyclic romance."

I'm, after all, the one taking the text at the face value,

Indeed, as intended. Is it just easier to believe that those of the past - especially non-Christians - were bloody savages and cruel folk?

 

[Sanzbir]

Christianity purposely took over Pagan sites, usually destroying statues and temples, and building on top of them

See, I agree in theory, but my Odinist ancestors did the exact same thing to the Christians. Sometimes the Christians started it (Like in the case of Haakon Sigurdsson) and sometimes the Odinists started it (Like in the case of Ivar the Boneless or Sigtrygg One-Eye).

It would seem, to me, to really be too difficult to parse in the case of Odinism (other pagan faiths, not so much) to see who owes who what in terms of restitution.

Do the Christians give the Odinists back the temples in question, and the Odinists then have to pay restitution so the Christians can rebuild their ancient burned monasteries??

In one instance my ex-Odinist, Catholic convert ancestor kept burning monasteries even after he converted. I'm not even sure how you parse that one to determine which side is at fault.

Just, specifically in Britain, the situation between Odinist and Christian looks rather complicated for purposes of restitution.

 

[Ingledsva]

See, I agree in theory, but my Odinist ancestors did the exact same thing to the Christians. Sometimes the Christians started it (Like in the case of Haakon Sigurdsson) and sometimes the Odinists started it (Like in the case of Ivar the Boneless or Sigtrygg One-Eye).

It would seem, to me, to really be too difficult to parse in the case of Odinism (other pagan faiths, not so much) to see who owes who what in terms of restitution.

Do the Christians give the Odinists back the temples in question, and the Odinists then have to pay restitution so the Christians can rebuild their ancient burned monasteries??

In one instance my ex-Odinist, Catholic convert ancestor kept burning monasteries even after he converted. I'm not even sure how you parse that one to determine which side is at fault.

Just, specifically in Britain, the situation between Odinist and Christian looks rather complicated for purposes of restitution.

All sides fought and did wrong, - however - none was so evil and methodical as the Christians in their destroying of Pagan statues, knowledge, religion, Temples, and culture.

*

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

...sometimes the Odinists started it (Like in the case of Ivar the Boneless or Sigtrygg One-Eye).

Did Ivar start it? Or did Ælle, when he threw their father into a pit of snakes?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

All sides fought and did wrong, - however - none was so evil and methodical as the Christians in their destroying of Pagan statues, knowledge, religion, Temples, and culture.

Don't forget the Massacre at Verden.

 

[Sanzbir]

Unless, of course, he was shot in the back or slain from horseback. Or even a chariot, as the TV show Vikings depicts Ivar driving.

Possible, yes, since Ivar was said to have been carried into battle on a shield, palanquin style. He seems to have participated in the battles, despite his handycap. Though I don't know Old Norse nearly well enough to determine if an arrow-based injury would qualify with the word "cut".

But can we... not discus Vikings in relation to a discussion on historical accuracy of the Norse Sagas. I mean it's Vikings, for crying out loud. The show that thought Lodbrok was a surname!!

A factor in maintaining Christianization was demonizing the past. Depicting or telling of something so bloody and barbaric serves this end.

Well duh, but I doubt the man who conquered Northumbria and parts of Ireland needed to be demonized all that much...

Nope, making it very unlikely that such a method of execution and sacrifice to Odin was ever implemented.

Writings? Yes; it's been the subject of much debate and study. But why would anyone write a contemporary poem just to explain that the blood eagle was dramatic effect? They wouldn't. No more so than anyone would write a "Gospel of..." explaining all the literary devices and exaggerations in the Christian bible.

Not what I mean. I mean is there any instance of it being used as a kenning.

Because if it was an old kenning, I'd think we'd see it somewhere in the pre-Christian literature used, correct?? But as far I know the first use of it at all was in later sources.

Roberta Frank's "Viking Atrocity and Skaldic Verse: The Rite of the Blood-Eagle" page 334. She even outlines how the tale grew bigger and more cruel:

Thanks for the source. I look forward to reading.

Indeed, as intended. Is it just easier to believe that those of the past - especially non-Christians - were bloody savages and cruel folk?

I'm still not wholly convinced it's all demonization. Do you have anything else on the other instance of it that I came across in my genealogy, the Orkneyinga Saga??

EDIT: Nevermind that question!! I think I actually found evidence of Frank's claims re-reading my Orkneyinga Saga. Post incoming.

 

[Sanzbir]

Did Ivar start it? Or did Ælle, when he threw their father into a pit of snakes?

You'll question me on the historicity of the blood eagle but assert the historicity of Ragnar Lodbrok??

Based on the things we know: There's probably no way for a Northumbrian monarch to maintain a pit of vipers, and Ivar the Boneless was real, and Ragnar likely fake, it seems more likely that Ivar was just a guy who showed up and started conquering the Danelaw for himself.

So yeah, I'd say the historical Ivar very much started it.