|
|
|
The Assembly of The Elder Troth would like to welcome you to our website. Please click on the links to the left to enter the relevant area of our site. Heil and welcome to the Articles section of the Assembly of The Elder Troth website. Here you can find items written by many wide and varied folk. The idea is to provide a venue for discussion, debate and education amongst the folk by giving people an individual flavour to the information provided. Every article here is the work of its' author. Copyright rests with the Author, reproduction is prohibited without the authors permission. Community - by Dirk Schmitt Introduction There seems to be many opinions on just what the Asatru community is. The Asatru/Heathen community is both a combined community, as well as many smaller communities. We can look at the historical background of the Germanic Tribes, where there are many tribes, both large and small who are essentially of a common type of folk with a thread of similarity travelling through them all, regardless of the particular permutation of the individual tribe. What we must also realise is that this view was mainly thought of by folk outside the community, and was often used as a convenient catch-all. Folk within the community whilst aceeding to common elements within the community, would still have pointed out their own regional differences (just look at modern German folk). To the wider world, Asafolk are seen as part of the greater Pagan community, which essentially lumps us in with folk from many different tradtions, which is essentially what most folk would consider the Pagan community to be, to the point of looking at us as just being non-Christian. . Naturally we have distinctions within the greater Pagan community, with broad categories of folk. We as Asafolk are essentially one branch of this community, and within Asatru there are many different divisions as to just what we feel, and believe. For a long period of time, the greatest division in the Asatru community was the division between Universalism and Folkism. These two camps existed in varying degrees, but what is perhaps most interesting is that these differing classifications have lost some of their vim and vigour as the demarkations of choice, albeit they do still exist and can be found to still be mentioned. What are these different classifications, well, let us define them here. Universalism is essentially the ideal that Asatru is a belief system for eveyone, regardless of where you are from, or who you are. It even often takes matters to an extreme of believing that the gods and goddesses are facets of a single divinity. Whilst the gods and goddesses indeed seem to have common origins in the mists of antiquity, we must be quite aware of the fact that they have grown and developed with us, lends itself to them being differentiated, just as I am differentiated from other people. I am different, but yet the same, and the same can be said of the gods and goddesses, and the mixing of traditions feels to me to be something that is being disrespectful of our traditions. Folkism is essentially the idea that only folk who are within the cultural framework of our ancestral peoples can be part of Asatru. This takes many forms of expression, with varying degrees of adherence to the precepts of folkism. This ranges from rather mild expressions, through to the extreme of racist thought, but for many commentators it seems the term folkish and folkism has become synonimous with the term racist. This is actually very unfortunate because it tars many good folk with a rather wide and indiscriminate brush. The divide between these two concepts, so far as I have seen to date, have dwindled into only being used by folk who want to get a rise out of people. Labelling someone folkish or universalist these days seems to be only useful when applied to extremes of these idealogical models and the response elicited from most folk is... "What, you're still on about that?" thankfully most folk have gotten past this dividing line, and have been able to realise that such labels are only of value to folk who need to stereotype and pidgeon hole. Having lost this dynamic of folkist vs universalist, some folk seem to have embraced the desire to find other grounds to sew the seeds of division and dissention. One of these areas appears to be the ideas of community and more specifically how individual communities within the greater Asatru community are organised and run. There are even those folk who turn around and say that they are not a part of the Asatru community, and never have been, that they are something else. This statement in and of itself is not too problematic if one is within the Asatru community and knows the differences in the tribal and cultural models we apply, but for an outsider, it is a minefield. My own perception here is that the term Asatru should be used to cover any folk who are "true to the As (the Aesir and Vanir). It doesn't matter what culture one is exemplifying, whether it be Gothic, Swede, Dane, Norwegian, Icelandic, Lombard, Germanic, Anglo Saxon, etc. This broad term Asatru is one which has the best inclusion level of any term I have come across to date. The only other terms that I would consider to be as inclusive are Germanic Heathenry (albeit to an outsider this would only be seen as being specifically German), or Northern European Folk Faith, or such similar terms which, I feel, would get too cumbersome. We have a term, and lets stick to it. Most of the objections to the term Asatru I have come across to date, centre around two things. One is the history of Asatru within the United States of America. There are folk who do not like the history of the development of Asatru there, and believe that the term Asatru is tainted beyond redemption. Whilst they acknowledge that it is a good term, they believe that its' use is not to be considered due to events in the past. One need only look at the Fylfot (Sunwheel, Swastika), and the fight to return that symbol to its' original meaning, to see that we can do the same with the term Asatru. The second objection is that the term is manufactured and is not historically valid. This argument is problematic, in that, the folk beliefs of our ancestors didn't need a specific name up until contact with other belief systems was encountered and our folk had to make up a term to describe their beliefs. Therefore, what purpose would the term serve our folk in the past when there was no requirement to describe their faith to foreigners... they just were what they were. Much ado has been made in more recent times about the form of organisational structure and leadership that is within the broad category of Asatru, and the subsets of this. Asatru mostly grew out of an Icelandic model, primarily due to the fact that the majority of information that we have, deals specifically with Iceland. Others have challenged this notion however, to the point of stating that the Icelandic model is both flawed and was a singular and abberant system of leadership and control. Rather than just try and debunk this theory and limit myself in what I am speaking of, I have decided to broaden my investigation to provide a better overview of our ancestral beliefs so that folk can make a sounder judgement for themselves on what style of leadership and organisational structure they wish to adopt, if they choose to do so. Germanic Community Model Some of our first knowledge of the Germanic folk comes from the work of Cornelius Tacitus. His "Germania" written in 98CE is described as "certainly the best of its kind in antiquity, perhaps in any age." (Penguin Edition, 1970, Page 24) Tacitus' work has been verified by archaeological study and evidence which lends us to think that, at least in the case of descriptions of the Germanic folk, his work is indeed accruate. As to the living arrangments and social construct of the Germanic folk, most commentators agree that Tacitus certainly had quite a degree of political self interest in his depiction of the Germanic folk, but in essence we can take his depictions as being close to the true disposition of the Germanic folk of the time.
It is clear from the above passages that tribes had three forms of leadership. What Tacitus terms "Kings or State-Chief" who are of noble birth, seem to be leaders of many different sub tribes within the one tribal nation. This is born out by the passage where-in it is stated "On matters of minor importance only the chiefs debate." Major decisions involve the whole community in an assembly. The next class of leader is the military commander, but unlike the generals of today, these commanders are in the thick of the fighting. It is interesting to note that the chiefs fight as well, but yet there is still a commander of the fighters. The last position of power is the priest. Hence we can see in this regard the social structure would appear somewhat like the below: King (Chief) - Chieftains - Folk Military Commander - Warriors - Folk Priests - Folk One would expect from this structure to have a situation where each leader had their time of control. In diplomatic and decision making exchanges the Chiefs are at the top. During battles the Military Commander is the leader and they lead by example from the front. Anything to do with the gods and goddesses is ascribed to the priests and priestesses. Major matters, the whole community gets to have its' say. It is easy to see from the descriptions that Tacitus provides us, how the folk cultures that grew out of this, retained elements of this system all the way through to the conversion times, and indeed in many cases the system did not change after conversion but only took on a foreign overlay to already existing procedures to acknowledge the new priests of the foreign faith. Scandinavian Community Model If we move forward in time throught to the Medieval period, then we have some interesting insights from the Scandinavian countries. On a purely administrative, or for want of a better word Political level, some interesting insights come to us from research done, particularly in recent times.
It was not until the twelfth century that the three major Scandinavian Kingdoms, in classical Medieval style were truly created. This took place due primarily to the influence of Christianity, which favoured a heirarchical structure, in opposition to the traditional forms of leadership and community. Furthermore, true hereditary succession did not really start until Christianity had extended its' tentacles to have great influence on the regions political processes. Originally rulership took place much in the same way as that we see in the descriptions of Tacitus. District and Provincial assemblies, the classic "thing", witha royal enterage known as the "hirð". Royal authority greatly depended upon the success of royal agents influencing these assemblies. Even in later times, local governement was still organised in the manner as it had always been done. Iceland The above section has some very interesting insight into the origin of the Icelandic model of community and especially leadership. Unlike the claims I have seen espoused by some, where the Icelandic people were folk with an abomination for their rulership structure, something completely new and unique, this is simply not the case. Their leadership structure evolved out of what can be easily seen to be a modified form of the leadership structure that Tacitus describes almost 1,000 years earlier. That the Icelandic folk took their already established culture and systems with them, must be self-evident, and it would be totally out of character for a group of people to totally abandon all aspects of their culture simply because they moved to another land mass. Denmark The ninth century sees the Danish kingdom having its centre in south and central Jutland and neighbouring islands. Whilst this whole archipelago was under the control of the Danes, they also extended their power and influence at this time to the coastlands surrounding this area. During the ninth century, the west coast of modern day Sweden was under the control of the Danes and was in fact known as the "Danemark", which means the frontier region of the Danes. The Danes not only had direct control over these areas but also extended their influence further through naval power as well as having an army. Leadership amongst the Danes at the time could be held either by a single king, or even two or three ruling jointly. There does not appear to have been a fixed rule of succession, as when a choice needed to be made, it was made by leading men, at times after armed conflict. Sweden The Svear, as they were known originally, had power held in the hand of chieftains. They did have a King, but this person was closely associated with the primary god worshipped at Uppsala, and in reality was a figurehead to provide a focal point to ensure unity and hence ensure the prosperity of the region. From our point of view, as Asatruar, this is a very interesting concept, as this person would seem to be combining the functions of King and Priest in the one form. What is also interesting is that royal ancestry was not a prerequisite of becoming a King amongst the Svear, with many having come from lands outside those held by the Svear. It was not until towards the end of the eleventh century that any degree of unity could be considered as the Christian rulers finally supressed the traditional beliefs of the Swedish folk, especially through the suppression of the group at Uppsala. But even at this stage, where Kings began to directly control their lands, and form the classical heirarchical structure of rulership, at areas outside their direct control, they still needed the support of their Jarls. Norway After the collapse of the Danish empire, Harald Finehair, either a Prince or King from southwest Norway, gained the opportunity to make himself overlord of a large part of Norway, and thus the Norwegian Kingdom was born. The form this Kingdom took is exactly like it was in the Danish Kingdom. The King, was a leader who was dependant upon the support of his Chieftains. Common Elements of the Scandinavian Communities Assemblies, as described by Tacitus some 1,000 years earlier were the basic institution of government amongst the Scandinavian Communities. In the ninth century, these assemblies had the public affairs of their communities in their hands with all the local freemen of the area being entitled to attend. For the more regular, and often more important meetings, the name thing was applied, but other meetings could be called if the situation warranted it, and these were termed stefna. The function of such assemblies was the making of public declarations, where what took place affected the community, and examples of such things are the announcement of land changing hands, a slave being freed or an heir being recognised. The thing was a time when accusations of theft and boundary disputes were handled, but were also times of political discussion, the formation of social contracts (such as marriages), buying and selling, sporting contests and religious ceremonies. Such assemblies however, may not have been so regular as what descriptions provide. Indeed, where folk were living at greater distances from each other, things took place on a less frequent basis. Attendance at such gatherings was voluntary, and as such, it was up to the individuals concerned to attend or not attend as they saw fit. Where such assemblies took place at infrequent intervals, often folk would go to an arbitrator to assist in the settlement of disputes. Njal's Saga is a good source for this form of arbitration in Iceland, but it can be assumed from the general character of the folk, that this would have been a pattern across the people up until the conversion, and even to some degree afterwards. At things the methods used to settle disputes often varied. Oftimes folk would have to bring charges in a ritualised manner, see Njal's Saga for a good example of the formula used in Iceland. Sometimes disputes were settled by the casting of lots (presumably consulting the Runes), other times it would be settled by a duel between the agrieved parties or their assigned representatives. Another method, was that of oaths made by supporters. Or even in some cases the entire field of above options could be utilised. Leadership, regardless of how it was claimed, in all the Scandinavian Kingdoms had to be recognised by the assemblies. Implications for Modern Ásatrú One thing that one can observe is the fact that modern Ásatrú has in the past developed its' structures in the form of classical, heirarchical models. This has often been a charismatic leader at the head of the organisation, and folk under them who basically follow that individuals lead. As people move into the organisation, it reaches a critical point where personalities clash and then either the whole organisation collapses or splits into two or even three smaller groups. This process is one that is in fact contrary to our ancestral traditions, as can be seen by the above analysis. Our ancestors knew the best way to forge and hold a society together was by the formation of a common law, created by the combination of individuals at the lowest level of society. The freemen of the tribe would gather and then decide on what-ever issue was at hand. In minor matters, the leaders of tribes might get together to make decisions, but in anything that was important, the tribes freemen would be consulted. This is however, in many ways difficult to do in a modern context. Firstly, we are an equalist society, where women have the same rights as men, and slavery has been abolished. Somehow we have come to the opinion that the "ordinary" person, is incapable of making decisions with regards to things which directly affect their lives. We now live in a "representative" world, a world where the representatives do as they please, or listen to the most vocal minority, or the most financially powerful minority, and the folk are left out in the cold. The return to traditional forms of community regulation would require a complete reversal of the trend towards representative governance as it exists today. We need to start with our families, the folk at the most core level of society. Within our families we have certain house rules. Regardless of how one describes these groups, as households, hearths, cribs, sips, &c. within the family, we have rules which specifically relate to how we deal with the world around us, and have the ability to be discerning or not. How we live our lives within our own homes is our choice and our responsibility. Beyond that, the community has no say in how an individual lives their life. When, however, we get to the next level up in the community, matters change a bit. Here, we are interacting with people outside our individual family, and there-in we will start finding that folk may have different opinions to that which we do. How then do we live at all with these people? At this point, matters of common law become more important, but they need only be defined as issues present themselves. Our current level of law is so over-encumbered due to the "need" to legislate for every eventuality, and the strange compulsion to remove the idea of personal responsibility from out of our society. I am sure our ancestors would have been horrified at the concept. Another issue is the fact that what constituted a tribe two thousand years ago, can describe a modern city block. Think about it, even in a city the size of say Sydney, Australia, with four million inhabitants, a city block of residential developments might have say two to three hundred people living in just that one city block. That in and of itself is a small tribe. The question is, how do we bring these people together? The answer, in essence, in many ways is that we can not. In that city block there will be people of different cultures, different backgrounds, beliefs, etc. There is not a sufficient level of commonality to inspire such folk to work together beyond a superficial level. To build a society, a tribe if you will, we need to come together with other folk who have as much in common with us as possible. This process is one of taking time, and effort, and is certainly something that cannot be easily won in our modern world. To forge a new community on the principle of our ancestral structures is a noble pursuit, but one which needs to work from the ground up. Just as our ancestors did, we need folk in agriculture to support our workers, our artisans, our manufacturers. We do NOT need to support our leaders, for these folk have people who aid and assist them as well as the fact that our leaders, our true leaders, have their own businesses and industry to support themselves and their work for the community is done because it is for the benefit of the community as opposed to their hip pocket. And from there we build a series of tribes, into a nation. A group of folk, who have a common law, built from the ground up. From the level of social adherance developed from specific examples of conduct by people within the tribe, which then grows into culture and tradition. This is the common law that we must work towards. The way to go, is to look to the folk, and see what THEY want, and need. Do THEY think you should be leader? Did THEY put you there in the first place? Do THEY have the right to decide for themselves? Sources: The Agricola and the Germania, Advisory Editor - Betty Radice, Translated with an introduction by H. Mattingly, Translation revised by S.A. Handford. A Book of Troth - Edred Thorsson Medieval Scandinavia, From Conversion to Reformation, circa 800 to 1500, Birgit and Peter Sawyer. Njal's Saga HOME | Articles Home | Top Of Page Images and Contents Copyright © Assembly of The Elder Troth 2002 - 2007 or as specified. For communications regarding this website please e-mail webmaster@aetaustralia.org Page maintained by Schmitt Services Last Update: Monday, November 10, 2003
|