tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post7860605903711287934..comments2024-03-28T00:11:33.489-04:00Comments on bensozia: Neil Price, "The Viking Way: Magic and Mind in Late Iron Age Scandinavia"Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-28621456800890970612021-04-10T15:18:42.208-04:002021-04-10T15:18:42.208-04:00"But here's the problem: there is not, in...<i>"But here's the problem: there is not, in Norse literature, a single clear description of a seer or seeress going into a trance state and returning from it with knowledge gathered in the Other Lands. Since that is the fundamental act that defines shamanism, how can we say that the Vikings were shamanistic?"</i><br /><br />Is the presence of a trance state <i><b>really</b></i> the defining characteristic of shamanism?<br /><br />Because I would posit that the belief in a separate "spirit world" which one normally cannot communicate with is the foundational aspect, and that the exact method of achieving that communication is secondary.<br /><br />For example, we don't classify the Ancient Greeks as having been shamanistic just because trances were sometimes employed in certain divinations and healing rituals. Their cosmology (as I understand it) lacked a separate spirit world - the gods lived in and shared the same fundamental reality as mortals, dwelling on the literal Mount Olympus, meddling in mortal affairs as routine, etc. Even the "underworld" was a physical place you could literally just travel to the entrance of if you really wanted to, as Orpheus did - no trance required.<br /><br />We also don't consider examples like Sufi Muslim Dervishes or Christian Shakers to be shamanistic, despite employing ecstatic dance and other practices involving altered states, specifically with the intent to commune with heaven / the divine. If shamanism is truly defined by people going into trances and returning with knowledge from beyond the veil, surely that would qualify, no?<br /><br />The Norse clearly believed in a "spirit world" which was separate from their own reality, and which required special rituals or powers to interact with. Does it really make sense to argue they weren't shamanistic just because they may (or may not) have failed to practice trance, specifically, as the method of communication? What are magic spells and other ritual acts, if not special ways to pierce the veil and tap into the supernatural world beyond our limited mundane reality? Why is trance itself so important - more important, even, than basic cosmology?<br /><br />Consider, also, that some shamanistic traditions don't involve a seer or shaman going into a trance to travel to the other world - some involve spirits from the other world coming to our own and inhabiting the shaman instead.<br /><br />In fact, some don't even require a shaman, per se - some traditions involve spirit possession against the will of the host. Sometimes a trance is required to "channel" a spirit into a host, but other times a spirit possessing someone <i>causes</i> them to enter a trance like state - it is a symptom of possession, rather than a path to it.<br /><br />Moreover, some possessions don't even involve people! Animals can be possessed - they clearly aren't shamans, and usually don't enter "trances" as we normally think of them - their unusual behavior while possessed is evidence for the possession, but can surely it's a stretch to call that a trance? Corpses can be possessed, and that's an even bigger stretch! Even inanimate objects can be possessed in some cases! If a spirit passes over from the other world and possesses a rock, surely that's still shamanism even if there's clearly no trance involved?G. Verlorennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-65685789959025620262021-04-10T08:00:19.585-04:002021-04-10T08:00:19.585-04:00As fascinating as I thought it would be.
It strik...As fascinating as I thought it would be.<br /><br />It strikes me that Price's first chapter sounds like it's of a piece with the way he loves the Vikings--giving you all of Odin's names, etc. In his defense, some CYA is well warranted. There *are* a lot of academic reviewers who see their job as hunting out whatever secondary source an author has missed and then lambasting them for it. Often this is done with a real edge of "gotcha" Schadenfreude. Also, as you know, there are plenty of dissertation advisors who see their main role as making sure the study begins with something precisely like his chapter 1 (and, perhaps, to teach their tender charges the value of CYA). There was probably someone on his committee who smiled contentedly over a job well done.<br /><br />FWIW, one of my own main interests is in the way cultures are divided, and I wonder if there wasn't among the Norse an opposing culture of good sense, reticence, and restraint. I think one may see signs of this in the Icelandic sagas. As you've said, berserks appear as outsiders and convenient foils there, and the sagas are quite laconic about sex. Saga heroes do do violence, but the preoccupation seems to be that a good man makes sure he's done a proper job of getting the objects of his rage outlawed before killing them. I'm reluctant to see all this as just a Christian import (after all, if that's the case, my question would be, how was Norse society divided before Christianity?). Perhaps one thing that drove the Icelandic settlement was horror at a mainland society that had gone too far on violence and weirdness. Of course, the Icelanders also preserved a lot of the lore of Price's "Viking Way"--but perhaps their fascination, like that of modern academics, was that of outsiders peaking in (the same way moderns can't let go of, say, the Manson family).Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14456987412710878404noreply@blogger.com