Norse-Scottish help?

[crystal autumnwind]

I've done some searching on here, but haven't quite found what I'm looking for. I was hoping someone could help...

I'm looking for info on Norse religions. I believe Asatru is one. I am particularly looking for religions that were practised by the Norse after they immigrated to Northern Scotland. I'm assuming after a time Norse practices mingled with the native Scottish religions.

If anyone can point me in the right direction (websites would be great), I'd really appreciate it!

[Seren_]

By the time the Norse (by which I assume you mean Viking/Danes/Norwegian types?) got to Scotland, Scotland was fairly Christian.

This might help with some background:

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MA/NORSE.HTM

This is also good for a Recon's (not necessarily Asatruar, I don't think) view:
http://www.heithingi.com/index.php

[mothwench]

mòrag passed this link on to me a while ago, it's about the orkney islands, i'll link you to their folklore section, but it's a good idea to check out the whole site.
hope it helps. :kooky:

http://www.orkneyjar.com/folklore/folklore2.htm

[crystal autumnwind]

Thanks guys, I will check out those links!

[Grey]

Hehe, I LOVE norse myth... heres some more for you.

http://www.timelessmyths.com/norse/norseheroes.html

http://www.northvegr.org/siteindex.html -A really comprehensive place.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~cherryne/myth.cgi/Figures.html

And a fairly good site on runes can be found here:
http://sunnyway.com/runes/

Though the claimof family ties is unsubstantiated I can find little or nothing wrong with their information on The runes themselves, or Nidstang, Myths... all good.

And I absolutely love "a rune casters lament"! :D :boing:

[crystal autumnwind]

Thanks again!

I am in the middle of writing a book and the character is loosely based on my heritage. I knew my family was from Scotland, but I just recently found out they were from northern Scotland and some were decended from a Norse viking that landed there. So, I am really interested in this.

One other question...I know it was said that the Scottish were mainly christian by the time the Norse arrived, but it is possible they weren't all christian, right? And were the invading Norsemen christian? If not, what was the name of their religion?

[Grey]

Actually The norse conquered much of Scottland and Ireland long before christianity became catholic. Pagans Had their own kingdoms on the isles still.

Dublin for instance was a Norse outpost, and If Im not mistaken Sterling aswell.

[mothwench]

i don't know if they had a name for their religion back then, but it's a good idea to look into asatru or heathenry for an idea of how it's practised now.
have a look at some of the threads here: http://www.mysticwicks.com/forumdisplay.php?f=94 and maybe join the class, if you want to.
as a start, i would read some of the stories in the edda, which is kind of the norse creation saga frome beginning to end.
also, look up some stuff (google it! :p) about:
runes
seidr (norse witchcraft/shamanism type thing)


a good place to start is always sunnyway.com, the last link in grey's post. it's a site about runes, but they also have good articles on mythology and sagas.

a far more extensive view of things can be found at http://www.thetroth.org/

[Seren_]

Thanks again!

I am in the middle of writing a book and the character is loosely based on my heritage. I knew my family was from Scotland, but I just recently found out they were from northern Scotland and some were decended from a Norse viking that landed there. So, I am really interested in this.

One other question...I know it was said that the Scottish were mainly christian by the time the Norse arrived, but it is possible they weren't all christian, right? And were the invading Norsemen christian? If not, what was the name of their religion?

Scotland, as a geographical term, desribes an area that historically was under the influence of a variety of cultures even before the Vikings. Dal Riada (Irish, to the West), Picts to the East, and more northerly; with the native Britons of the South being displaced by both...But even by this time Christianity was spreading. Maybe it wasn't widespread, but it had an impact.

Most evidence we have of Viking invasions or incursions in Scotland are from Christian sources (because unlike the non-Christian Celts, they wrote things down); and these give the impression of a Christian population that they exist in. These written sources are from ecclesiastical centres like Iona, for example, and so are obviously biased. Are they going to mention the pagans? Well, usually yes, because they are always concerned with converting the pagan population. An obvious way of doing this is through the king; the king converts, so his minions do and so on. But this is a very simplistic view....These sources might mention the Christian kings and so forth, but what about the more "lowly" types?

If you could give a specific time frame, I might be able to help you a bit more, with local sources and such. Possibly :) I realise I'm probably not making much sense right now.

[mucgwyrt]

This is a difficult one, because the "norse" (I assume you mean the scandinavians, rather than the people from norway specifically) actually "invaded" the country a couple of times that I know of -

the first time was about 450ad; the angles and saxons (anglo-saxons) decided to come and live in britain and spread from the south upwards (I dont recall if they ever reached northern scotland though). They technically then converted to christianity around 600ad or so, though they seem to have continued many of their pagan practises. The "norse" then came again 8-900ad as raiders - mostly in the north - and some settled I believe.

Religeon wise, try looking into the Northumbrian runes (Northumbria is just south of the border of scotland, with a great deal of anglo-saxon influence) and read beowulf etc etc. Northern scotland specifically though, I haven't a clue. I guess I would read some of the Eddas (norse epics, similar to beowulf )

Hope this helped xx

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

I absolutely think you should check out Orkneyjar (http://www.orkneyjar.com) Not just the folklore section, but the whole thing. It is definitely the best site out there dealing with a blend of Norse and Scottish beliefs and practices.

[crystal autumnwind]

Okay, I've gotten a little more specific information.

My ancestors are from Clan Gunn which descended from Gunni (or Guin) supposedly the second son of Olav (Olaf) the Black, who died c. 1237. It is also speculated that he was grandson of Sweyn Asleifsson (from the Orkneyinga Saga.) Around the 1190's, Gunni came to Caithness (Scotland) with his wife Ragnhild. Her brother was Harold, Jarl of Orkney. They also held lands in Sutherland. The Norse married local Picts, so that is thrown in, as well.

I don't know when they first came to Scotland, but I do know they were Norse, specifically from Norway.

Again, thanks for everyone's help. I knew this would be the best place to start!

[mucgwyrt]

blimey, I wish I had that much success with geaneology! :lol:
Congrats!

[crystal autumnwind]

blimey, I wish I had that much success with geaneology! :lol:
Congrats!

Thanks! I've been working on it for a little over five years now. Sadly, that's the only line I have traced out of the country (US). The rest of my family have been here since the late 1600's and I can't go back any farther.

As for this line, there is a gap between my last known ancestor and this Gunni person. About 500 years! I know the clan originated with him and his family, so we are Norse. I just might not be a direct descendent of his. But I'll take what I can get!

[Leviathan]

By the time the Norse (by which I assume you mean Viking/Danes/Norwegian types?) got to Scotland, Scotland was fairly Christian.

This might help with some background:

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MA/NORSE.HTM

This is also good for a Recon's (not necessarily Asatruar, I don't think) view:
http://www.heithingi.com/index.php

Not intending to nitpick, but crystal is corrent when saying Norse, the term Viking is incorrect.
Viking is a corruption of the Norse word Wiking (there was no "V" in the norse language), which basically meant "Raid from the sea", it was a job description, not a racial name, and there are fragments from Norse texts where they complain about being raided by "Those damned English Wikings". Viking wasn't used to describe the Norse as a people until about 1850.

Now, that aside, I'm assuming Crystal, that you mean the 'traditional' time when the Norse raided and pillaged, which was roughly from 793ad (first Norse raid on an English monastary) till the 1000s or 1100s.
Unfortunately, the Norse religion after they settled in Scotland was basically the local religion of the area they settled in. While they had a strong religion back home, when the Norse settled in another country, they assimilated the religion and practices local to the area that they settled in.

[mucgwyrt]

Not intending to nitpick, but crystal is corrent when saying Norse, the term Viking is incorrect.
Viking is a corruption of the Norse word Wiking (there was no "V" in the norse language), which basically meant "Raid from the sea", it was a job description, not a racial name, and there are fragments from Norse texts where they complain about being raided by "Those damned English Wikings". Viking wasn't used to describe the Norse as a people until about 1850.

Now, that aside, I'm assuming Crystal, that you mean the 'traditional' time when the Norse raided and pillaged, which was roughly from 793ad (first Norse raid on an English monastary) till the 1000s or 1100s.
Unfortunately, the Norse religion after they settled in Scotland was basically the local religion of the area they settled in. While they had a strong religion back home, when the Norse settled in another country, they assimilated the religion and practices local to the area that they settled in.
That's not always correct, else we'd not have the anglo-saxon heathens with their gods, woden etc.

[Leviathan]

That's not always correct, else we'd not have the anglo-saxon heathens with their gods, woden etc.

Well, the alglo-saxon heathens, woad raiders (which is what I assume you mean by woden) etc were all there before the Norse came to call. In a few isolated cases the Norse may have made a small impact on local culture, but considering their reputation and the ferocity that they are known for, they left very little lasting impact where they settled.

Oh, and I very much hope that nobody who is reading this still thinks that Norse wore horned helmets ;) :bouncysmi

[Seren_]

In a few isolated cases the Norse may have made a small impact on local culture, but considering their reputation and the ferocity that they are known for, they left very little lasting impact where they settled.

I disagree with this statement... The Norse had a huge impact on places like Orkney and Shetland; mainly due to the fact that they became part of the Norse earldoms. They were only handed (sold) back to Scotland in the fifteenth century, apparently. Look at their placenames, for a start. They are almost all Norse, not Gaelic, and yet they would have settled with the local people, intermarried and intermingled, not just on the islands. This cultural impact can be seen in areas of mainland Scotland as well; the hog-back stones of Govan are also testament to how the Norse affected local culture.

Parts of northern Scotland, Orkney and Shetland in particular also have a very distinct Norse-influenced folklore, from what I know, compared to the more conservative Scots Gaelic Isles, say (I think Morag's link provides some good info). Their religion may have changed, but there was a transitional period as well. The Death Song for Eirik Bloodaxe (Eirksmal) has quite clear pagan overtones, even for the mid-tenth century when it was written in Orkney, at the behest of his widow who'd fled from York. It's not that clear-cut.

[CerridwensHarvest]

Wow! What luck! My family is a Nielson turned Nelson and affiliated with the Gunn Clan as well.
These links and other info. is much appreciated.

[Nantonos]

Well, the alglo-saxon heathens, woad raiders (which is what I assume you mean by woden)

Woad raiders?? Woden is a deity name.


etc were all there before the Norse came to call.
Yes. The Saxons were there before the Norse.


In a few isolated cases the Norse may have made a small impact on local culture, but considering their reputation and the ferocity that they are known for, they left very little lasting impact where they settled.
Thats an anachronistic view. Excavations at places like Dublin and York show that the Norse did indeed make a deep and lasting impact when they settled. And the Orkney language has significant numbers of Norse loanwords, more than Scots in general.

[Wodening]

Well, the alglo-saxon heathens, woad raiders (which is what I assume you mean by woden) etc were all there before the Norse came to call. In a few isolated cases the Norse may have made a small impact on local culture, but considering their reputation and the ferocity that they are known for, they left very little lasting impact where they settled.

Oh, and I very much hope that nobody who is reading this still thinks that Norse wore horned helmets ;) :bouncysmi

They were only in south Scotland, specificly Lothian to be exact. The Anglo-Saxons never went farther than that and, of course England while still Heathen.

Welga!
Swain

[Mjollnir]

That's not always correct, else we'd not have the anglo-saxon heathens with their gods, woden etc.



Woden,Wodan and Wotan are all different names for Odin, they are all the same.

[Leviathan]

Well, they are all corruptions of Odin anyways, since Odin is actually pronounced Othin.

I will admit defeat on certain areas being heavily influenced by the Norse, though in the vast majority of places this was not the case. I've been missing my own mark, the area around England/Scotland would have been one of the few areas influenced by Norse culture, since the Norse conquored that area, and had outposts there for decades (in fact, some believe that the story of King Arthur arose from a warrior who helped drive the Norse back).
In all other areas that they settled, the Norse left very little mark, and of course by the 1100s, they had all converted to Christianity and that was the end of the raids anyways.

And the Norse didn't so much as make an impact on Dublin as they did found the city in the first place ;).

And one small thing for any Linguists out there. When interpreting place names and such, you have to be very careful what you clasify as Norse, since Old English and Old Norse are *very* similar languages, when the Norse first came in contact with those speaking Old English, they could understand each other perfectly as long as one side (the Norse I think) clipped the word endings off their words.

[Wodening]

Well, they are all corruptions of Odin anyways, since Odin is actually pronounced Othin.

Actually if you want to get technical Wóden, Wotan, and even Óðinn, are all variations of proto-Germanic Wodanaz. As for Arthur, it was the Anglo-Saxons, not the Norse he held at bay for a short time, or someone very much like him.

Welga!
Swain

[Leviathan]

Actually if you want to get technical Wóden, Wotan, and even Óðinn, are all variations of proto-Germanic Wodanaz. As for Arthur, it was the Anglo-Saxons, not the Norse he held at bay for a short time, or someone very much like him.

Welga!
Swain

That is very much a matter of what history book you read, and what excavation findings you believe. One belief is that Arthur was a warchief who helped throw back the Norse for a time, not just the Saxons.

I really dont see how Wodanaz (unless it's Wothanaz) leads to Othin... but most of those old religions etc are interconnected anyways, try looking at the parallels between Jesus and the Norse God Baldr/Balthr.

Unfortunately, us really knowing most of these kinds of facts is very difficult, owing to the Catholic Church purging all documents or stories relating to any religion other than their own :( .

(And glad to see the Horned Helmets hasn't been challenged *Grins* )

[Seren_]

That is very much a matter of what history book you read, and what excavation findings you believe. One belief is that Arthur was a warchief who helped throw back the Norse for a time, not just the Saxons.

The earliest historical records relating to Arthur place him firmly against the Anglo-Saxons, and these date from around the sixth century to the tenth. Although admittedly the earliest source, Gildas, is associated with Arthur more through the mention of the battle of Badon Hill, than mentioning him directly, I seem to recall. But then this assumes there was only one Arthur...some people think there are about five or so, in history :D Whether there was one or more, most date him (or the first) to around the fifth century AD, as best guess.

[crystal autumnwind]

(And glad to see the Horned Helmets hasn't been challenged *Grins* )


Well, since you brought it up and I'm a newbie here (I can get away with it! :heybaby: )...

I thought the horned headdress's (maybe not so much helmets) were worn by the Norse. I was reading a book (sorry, don't remember the name, but it was an anthropology book) that said they used the horns of the aurochs to kind of tap into it's strength. What's it called? Sympathetic magic? It even showed pictures of a hat with horns that almost looked like the head of a wild ox. Was this completely off?

[Nantonos]

That is very much a matter of what history book you read, and what excavation findings you believe. One belief is that Arthur was a warchief who helped throw back the Norse for a time, not just the Saxons.
Perhaps you could point to an excavation report that supports this hypothesis.


I really dont see how Wodanaz (unless it's Wothanaz) leads to Othin
The evolution of words depends on their sounds and the way that they have shifted. Linguistics is not based on superficial similarities or howa collection of letters might be pronounced in modern English.


(And glad to see the Horned Helmets hasn't been challenged *Grins* )
No, although your contention that the Norse were transient raiders leaving no real impact was succesfully challenged and, indeed, confirmed by your admission regarding Dublin.

[Leviathan]

Perhaps you could point to an excavation report that supports this hypothesis.


The evolution of words depends on their sounds and the way that they have shifted. Linguistics is not based on superficial similarities or howa collection of letters might be pronounced in modern English.


No, although your contention that the Norse were transient raiders leaving no real impact was succesfully challenged and, indeed, confirmed by your admission regarding Dublin.

Sorry, I can't point out an excavation or anything, and it's not actually a hypothosis, I studied Nose history last year at university, and it was one of the things that we studied.

And as to the 'transient raiders' bit, the only places where they truly left a lasting impact is in the areas that they *conquored*, rather than settled or raided (and no, setting up an outpost to base raids from doesn't count as conquored :D). The reason for the lasting impression in Dublin is because the Norse founded Dublin, it grew from a Norse outpost.

[Leviathan]

The earliest historical records relating to Arthur place him firmly against the Anglo-Saxons, and these date from around the sixth century to the tenth. Although admittedly the earliest source, Gildas, is associated with Arthur more through the mention of the battle of Badon Hill, than mentioning him directly, I seem to recall. But then this assumes there was only one Arthur...some people think there are about five or so, in history :D Whether there was one or more, most date him (or the first) to around the fifth century AD, as best guess.

Many of the problems with these historical documents are that dating can be unreliable, even if they write what date it is, the people themselves didnt' neceserily know what date it was :T .
Many believe that there was one Arthur, and then there were a whole spate of people who named their children after him.
There are so many different hypothosis and interpretations, and unless someone can build us a time machine, we'll never know for sure :D

[Leviathan]

Well, since you brought it up and I'm a newbie here (I can get away with it! :heybaby: )...

I thought the horned headdress's (maybe not so much helmets) were worn by the Norse. I was reading a book (sorry, don't remember the name, but it was an anthropology book) that said they used the horns of the aurochs to kind of tap into it's strength. What's it called? Sympathetic magic? It even showed pictures of a hat with horns that almost looked like the head of a wild ox. Was this completely off?

Hahaha, yup, I'll let you get away with it ;).
The legend that Norse wore horned helmets is totally and 100% wrong, it's all a myth. It all started when a person at a dig dug up a *Celtic* helmet, and *thought* it was Norse, and things snowballed form there :D. Hollywood took up the myth, and so it saturated popular culture with an image of the 'Viking' who looked pretty much like an oversized Tolkein dwarf :D.
There have been some writings where Norse raiders were referred to as "Demons", and so some others automatically assumed that meant horned :)
The Norse were also far better dressed and groomed than most commoners in that age, excavators have even found Norse Ironing boards!!!

[Nantonos]

Sorry, I can't point out an excavation or anything, and it's not actually a hypothosis, I studied Nose history last year at university, and it was one of the things that we studied.
In which case I would expect you to be able to cite a source, if you studied it at University level. It was after all your choice of words about excavations.

[Nantonos]

There are so many different hypothosis and interpretations, and unless someone can build us a time machine, we'll never know for sure :D

"We can never know 100%" and "therefore we don't knw anything, and any theory however outlandish is just as good as any other" are not equivalent statements.

[Leviathan]

"We can never know 100%" and "therefore we don't knw anything, and any theory however outlandish is just as good as any other" are not equivalent statements.

I never insinuated that they were.
And the theory I stated is one that has been put forward by people who have dedicated their lives to studying the Norse. It's not an outlandish theory.

[Leviathan]

In which case I would expect you to be able to cite a source, if you studied it at University level. It was after all your choice of words about excavations.

Yes, I know, but the intervening 18 months of computer studies have kicked any source names out of my brain very effectively.

[Nantonos]

I never insinuated that they were.
I hoped you weren't going in that direction, but wanted to wall it off just in case :bouncysmi


And the theory I stated is one that has been put forward by people who have dedicated their lives to studying the Norse. It's not an outlandish theory.
Hence my asking for a reference so I can benefit from their erudition. Where did they publish the theory? How well was it recieved? What facts does it explain that other theories don't? What facts does it ignore that other theories explain? So on and so forth.

[Leviathan]

I hoped you weren't going in that direction, but wanted to wall it off just in case :bouncysmi


Hence my asking for a reference so I can benefit from their erudition. Where did they publish the theory? How well was it recieved? What facts does it explain that other theories don't? What facts does it ignore that other theories explain? So on and so forth.

No problemo with the checking :D

I have no idea where the theory was published, it was one that our lecturer told us about, it just ties in with the not exactly knowing when arthur was about in the first place, and about how the Norse conquored that area, down to wales (I think it was), and then were driven back, and it was about the time that there were references to an arthur, whether or not this was *the* Arthur, or if he was named after *the* Arthur.... you get the idea.

[Lunamoth]

I'm sorry, I'm sorry *a thousand apologies*

I'm very much enjoying reading this discussion but I had to do a double-take on something...


I studied Nose history last year at university

Nose history? :rollingla

*more apologies*

Still, very very interesting discussion to read!

[Leviathan]

I'm sorry, I'm sorry *a thousand apologies*

I'm very much enjoying reading this discussion but I had to do a double-take on something...



Nose history? :rollingla

*more apologies*

Still, very very interesting discussion to read!

Yes indeed, for it turns out that the Norse actually named themselves after one of the great phenomenon of the times, the appearance of a giant glowing nose, floating over the seas near Scandinavia. This nose gifted the Norse with many new abilities, such as the ability to fly into a rage at the enemy, much the way that air rages through the nasal passages when you sneeze, and the ability to smell the right direction while they were at sea. Even the ability to smell an underdefended town, ripe with loot to pillage and burn.....

*Whew* Yes, that should have covered my mistake, they wont suspect a misprint now....

Oops, did I say that out loud?

[Seren_]

Yes indeed, for it turns out that the Norse actually named themselves after one of the great phenomenon of the times, the appearance of a giant glowing nose, floating over the seas near Scandinavia. This nose gifted the Norse with many new abilities, such as the ability to fly into a rage at the enemy, much the way that air rages through the nasal passages when you sneeze, and the ability to smell the right direction while they were at sea. Even the ability to smell an underdefended town, ripe with loot to pillage and burn.....

*Whew* Yes, that should have covered my mistake, they wont suspect a misprint now....

Oops, did I say that out loud?

:lol: All hail the nose!

[Lunamoth]

*Whew* Yes, that should have covered my mistake, they wont suspect a misprint now....

Oops, did I say that out loud?

What? no I didn't hear anything. ;)
:gagged: