Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Animism and Paganism

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Animism and Paganism

    It is ridiculous how often I run into these two terms that do nothing to help me understand a culture or world view. Their definitions are far too broad and they provide nothing but useless categories by which some outsider tries to explain a civilitzation or culture very different from their own. I am trying to study mythology and culture to prepare for when this game comes out, but I keep running into texts that say, "Africans have a long stading tradition of practicing animist religions," and " Paganism is a persistent force that impacts todays modern thinking in Europe"

    Why is it that there is so much literature about these two categories? There is either nothing of substance or they are a misnomer in what they attempt to describe. I have pretty much concluded that there isn't really anything in Africa that fits under the Animist description without missing crucial and critical context. And European paganism just seems to mean not Christian or any or its denominations, not particulary helpful when trying to understand the distinguishing characteristics of Gaul and Irish beliefs.

    *Sigh. Well anyway, I just wanted to let that out because of all the time I have been wasting on anthropology and other popular texts. Perhaps I should change my tactics and go for Subaltern studies; they probably have much more interesting things to say about themselves without wasting words on the above. Let me know if this is a good idea, if you are willing.


    How can I know if what I claim I know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I might not know? How can I know if what I claim I don't know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I do know?
    -Zhuangzi

  • #2
    Why is pagan a bad term? You describe it just fine; non-Christian faiths, especially those in regions that later became Christian.


    Remi. she/her. game designer.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Ostarion View Post
      It is ridiculous how often I run into these two terms that do nothing to help me understand a culture or world view. Their definitions are far too broad and they provide nothing but useless categories by which some outsider tries to explain a civilitzation or culture very different from their own. I am trying to study mythology and culture to prepare for when this game comes out, but I keep running into texts that say, "Africans have a long stading tradition of practicing animist religions," and " Paganism is a persistent force that impacts todays modern thinking in Europe"

      Why is it that there is so much literature about these two categories? There is either nothing of substance or they are a misnomer in what they attempt to describe. I have pretty much concluded that there isn't really anything in Africa that fits under the Animist description without missing crucial and critical context. And European paganism just seems to mean not Christian or any or its denominations, not particulary helpful when trying to understand the distinguishing characteristics of Gaul and Irish beliefs.

      *Sigh. Well anyway, I just wanted to let that out because of all the time I have been wasting on anthropology and other popular texts. Perhaps I should change my tactics and go for Subaltern studies; they probably have much more interesting things to say about themselves without wasting words on the above. Let me know if this is a good idea, if you are willing.

      Well, according to its definition, Paganism is any religion that does not belong to the Abrahamic faiths. It's not any one particular culture or religion. It's thousands of different cultures and religions that were given the same, generic title as each other. Shinto, and Hinduism technically count as pagan religions.

      You can't give a short, concise answer for who pagan are. All you can do is give a detailed account of the rites and customs of a specific group of people when attempting to explain their pagan world view.
      Last edited by Nyrufa; 11-09-2017, 03:02 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Ostarion View Post
        It is ridiculous how often I run into these two terms that do nothing to help me understand a culture or world view. Their definitions are far too broad and they provide nothing but useless categories by which some outsider tries to explain a civilitzation or culture very different from their own. I am trying to study mythology and culture to prepare for when this game comes out, but I keep running into texts that say, "Africans have a long stading tradition of practicing animist religions," and " Paganism is a persistent force that impacts todays modern thinking in Europe"

        Why is it that there is so much literature about these two categories? There is either nothing of substance or they are a misnomer in what they attempt to describe. I have pretty much concluded that there isn't really anything in Africa that fits under the Animist description without missing crucial and critical context. And European paganism just seems to mean not Christian or any or its denominations, not particulary helpful when trying to understand the distinguishing characteristics of Gaul and Irish beliefs.

        *Sigh. Well anyway, I just wanted to let that out because of all the time I have been wasting on anthropology and other popular texts. Perhaps I should change my tactics and go for Subaltern studies; they probably have much more interesting things to say about themselves without wasting words on the above. Let me know if this is a good idea, if you are willing.
        Oh man, I see you've run afoul of the problematic history of Western academia again. I get you, believe me. First of all, I need to say, while Subaltern Studies are a brilliant direction to go in when studying the world and its history, I really wouldn't call anthropology a waste of time. It is a difficult and problematic field for sure, and one I myself have despaired over in the past, but it definitely can be helpful no matter where you're coming from with your interests. It's greatest worth, I think, lies in its production of ethnographies through vistitation, through the complete immersion of the author in the culture they are trying to describe.

        Anthropology has a long academic history, slowly evolving from its horribly misguided original theories to what we have today. There's Evolutionism, Neo-Evolutionism, Diffusionism, Structuralism, Post-Modernism ... You have probably encountered most of that in your own research. And most of it is outdated already. The problem is that such theoretical shifts are very hard to follow for the layman (and I'm totally a layman myself when it comes to anthropology, even though I studied it for a semester). I'm taking a wild guess and will say that if you've been so frustrated with anthropological literature, you've probably read a lot of stuff that's older than the 2000s. It's always a good rule of thumb to go from the newest to the oldest in academic literature, but that is especially true of anthropology. It is an academic field that has developed momentously, and that has shed a lot of its original concepts. Which brings me to your problem with animism and paganism.

        Both animism and paganism are terms that were broadly used in the past, both inside and outside academia, but which are increasingly denied their analytical worth by now. It is absolutely true that neither of these terms helps understanding the real-world concepts they are applied to; they are not even good at description. Thus, their use has definitely declined in serious academic texts, although they are still broadly used in popular texts such as e.g. Wikipedia. Whenever I check out a new pantheon, I usually start at Wikipedia, not because the info there is usually worth anything, but because they usually have a list of books they used to research the article, which is a great jump-off point for my own research. And everytime I do that, Wikipedia will tell me "originally, culture XYZ practised an animistic religion". Thanks, Wikipedia. Now I know more.

        Animism is supposed to mean a religion that believes that everything in nature and in the human world has its own individual spirit. That is, at least, a term with a more or less clear definition, but closer scrutiny reveals how useless that concept is. Shintoism is often used as a typical example of an animisitcally-based religion, but that falls short not only of the fact that not necessarily everything carries a Kami spirit in Shintoism, but not even necessarily the same kind of spirit; it also ignores the enormous ancestral component to Shintoism. Meanwhile, ancient Greek religion, which is not usually considered animistic, does totally ascribe nymphs to every damn river, rock, and pasture in the Mediterranean. And this, I think, reveals the true problem of animism: It is an inherently racist and colonialist concept, meant to be applied exclusively to non-European cultures that are, through the Western lense, seen as primitive and closer to nature, thus worshipping nature itself instead of the more anthropomorphic gods Europe prides itself in. In truth, however, religions are never so clear-cut, and as Western academia has begun to get over its colonialist roots, concepts such as animism have been discarded.

        My advice to you when encountering terms such as animism would be to just not take them seriously as an analytical category; when using such a term, the author is not trying to make a helpful distinction, they are just being lazy. And the reason you are encountering so much literature about this topic is that a) the concept was wildly popular as a descriptive term in anthropology's hoary past and b) there were huge theoretical debates about it when it began to wane. TL;DR: Stick to more recent anthropological literature and ignore animism where you encounter it.

        Now paganism is a story apart from animism. While animism has always been an academic conept, the terms pagan and heathen are tied to religious history itself. Both terms have originally been pejorative, and are still often used in that way. Pagan is a word with Latin roots; it basically means "hillbilly" or "redneck" and was thus used by Early Christians to describe those around them who still followed the polytheistic religions and had not "evolved" to their level. Heathen, meanwhile, is a term of Germanic origin, and was probably coined when the Germanic tribes were Christianised on their march towards Rome; although its exact etymology seems indiscernible, it is clearly a term of distinction and demarcation as well. The terms went on to be used throughout Medieval Christian history, being applied to all outsiders not following Abrahamic religions (not, however, to Muslims, who were more properly considered heretics). It is then also a favourite descriptor used during colonialism to describe all those aforementioned "primitive" populations missionaries would encounter in Africa and elsewhere. It is a term that should not be used in academic literature, period. Every work that uses those terms automatically loses credibility in my eyes, not because they are so incredibly terrible (although, as I said, they are usually pejorative; more on that in a minute), but because paganism or heathenry simply isn't a category that has any analytical meaning.

        So Lex now of course says "Why is paganism a bad term?", and she has a point there. But that is because (as I suppose, and please correct me if I'm wrong), because Lex is using the term in a different way than Ostarion and I are. Namely, we are talking about the academic use of the term, whereas Lex, being, as far as I know, a modern-day pagan herself, is thinking more of this use as a personal religious affiliation. And the existence of Neo-Pagan religions is an absolute fact. They are here, and they should be respected. They define themselves through the revival of polytheistic practices, and they distance themselves from the Abrahamic majority by pointedly using the term pagan which has in the past been used by Christians to vilify followers of those religions. But it is a self-descriptor the adherents of these religions have reclaimed from its pejorative use, similar to how, if I may use such a comparison from my personal frame of reference, the LGBT+ community has reclaimed formerly pejorative terms like "queer". And like "queer" is a term I love to describe myself with but that is still uncomfortable to others, so pagan cannot just be used to describe others who haven't or can't give their consent.

        In the academic humanities, and especially in anthropology, it is central to try and understand a culture the way it understands or understood itself, and no civilisation of the past would have described itself as "hillbillies who aren't Christian". Christians weren't their frame of reference. They themselves were. Even terms like "pre-Abrahamic" or "pre-Contact" are bad substitutes for pagan and heathen, as they still use Europe as their point of departure to describe the non-European or non-Christian. We are still struggling for the truly perfect terms there. But both of them are infinitely more useful than pagan, which will carry a connotation that is either (in the original sense) pejorative and judgemental, or (in the modern sense) draws a connection to Neo-Paganism, both of which is anachronistic and far removed from the actual thought and experience of the culture one is trying to describe.

        What I'm trying to say, in general, is that you're absolutely right in being frustrated with these terms. You've understood what you're doing if you have discovered the problems with them. But give anthropology another shot and give Western scholarship another shot, even though I can fully understand why you would be annoyed with it at this point. We, all of us who deal with such literature, are constantly trying to hone our skill in criticising it and in drawing the most from it, and you and I are fighting the same battle in that way, even if we're coming at it from different directions. Just try to dive into the newer trends anthropology has brought forth, see what you can gather from Subaltern Studies, and try and keep having fun throughout it all

        Comment


        • #5
          As usual Sacerdos your posts are a pleasure to read
          Last edited by Samudra; 11-09-2017, 01:49 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ostarion View Post
            Why is it that there is so much literature about these two categories? There is either nothing of substance or they are a misnomer in what they attempt to describe. I have pretty much concluded that there isn't really anything in Africa that fits under the Animist description without missing crucial and critical context. And European paganism just seems to mean not Christian or any or its denominations, not particulary helpful when trying to understand the distinguishing characteristics of Gaul and Irish beliefs.

            *Sigh. Well anyway, I just wanted to let that out because of all the time I have been wasting on anthropology and other popular texts. Perhaps I should change my tactics and go for Subaltern studies; they probably have much more interesting things to say about themselves without wasting words on the above. Let me know if this is a good idea, if you are willing.
            Everything Sacerdos said is absolutely on the ball, you can tell that he got way more out of their theory courses than I did. I will second his point that you shouldn't count Anthropology out, it is an awesome field that has awesome resources for Scion, specifically Ethnographic work. However, approaching the rest of Anthropological literature can be really hard without proper training, training that I also lack even after taking like 1/3 of my credits in Anthropology. In general Ostarion, you are going to want to aim as recent as possible with publications with a few exceptions of very influential works that managed to not be absolute cock-ups. Aim for post 2000 if you can.

            Looking into Post-Colonial studies is a good idea, but don't do it to the detriment of other things. Don't, however, rely entirely on it. Don't rely entirely on any one theory, look at the breadth of things, and from there decide how you feel about them. It's never a good idea to only approach things from a single perspective, especially because if you only looked at Post-Colonial works, you would lose access to a bunch of Pantheons. For example, very-very-very few have approached the Irish from a Post-Colonial perspective as of yet, at least in the realm of religious practice, even though Ireland was a colony of the British Crown for upwards of eight hundred years. (It's something that I'm checking out to see how viable it is)

            But, in specific, are you trying to learn about the differences between Gaulish and Irish beliefs, or was that just an example? I could perhaps give you some literature, and give you a brief overview to start with. In general, be super-super-super careful of any works on 'Celtic' peoples since there is a huge amount of non-academic or very-outdated academic works on them. You get claims the Irish were a classless, peaceful, feminist society floating around between the 60s - 90s, and it's absolute utterly not true. Or you get people going, "I will tell you everything about the Druids!" when in reality we know maybe enough to fill two sheets of paper on things we definitively know, the Druids are the target of a lot of people just making stuff up entirely.

            Edit: Oh, and I'll second Sacerdos' idea that Animism is a super outdated term mostly used to describe non-European peoples to belittle them. Pretty much everyone has some level of belief of spirits inhabiting objects, it's not a unique idea to anyone, everyone's got it floating around to some degree. It's like human sacrifice, everyone's got it on hand somewhere.

            Animism also has the 'King, God, Slave' problem I have talked about before, how we use a single word in English to discuss these concepts, despite a Ri and a Raj, a Dia and a Deva, a Irish-Slave and a Norse-Thrall being entirely different things that by using the same word for them, suggests they are similar. So, you get a lot of works that go, "Oh bla bla bla, Africa is primarily Animist since we're old stuffy racists who can't be bothered to actually try," and also, "Oh bla, the Japanese are Animists since we're not bothering to actually understand anything," but both of these concepts are totally different. The Japanese notion of Kami residing in some objects is different from what you get with the Theoi who literally have a rank of divine entities in place to micromanage how each gust of wind, swirl in a stream, and etc works, which is also different from how the Ashanti notion of there being Abosom inside some objects. By using the term Animism, authors of the time were able to 'group' all of these cultural traditions together, to make broad, stupid sweeping statements about them all, using evidence from one to discuss another. (very rarely ever a safe thing to do)
            Last edited by Watcher; 11-09-2017, 09:06 AM.


            Scion 2e Homebrew Projects:
            The Šiuneš, The Enduri, The Sgā’na Qeda’s, The Abosom, Lebor Óe In Dea, The Zemi, Nemetondevos: Revised, and Mysteries of the Otherworld.

            Comment


            • #7
              “Paganism” has use as a category for historians in the very narrow context of talking exclusively about European polytheism in late antiquity in competition with rising Christianity. It was historically pejorative, but the only people who self identify with said faiths have reapportioned the term themselves.

              It’s not useful as a category for anthropology or sociology of religion, especially not applied globally! But for historians talking about the civic religions Christianity displaced in late antiquity specifically (and thus grouped together in that context), it has value.
              Last edited by glamourweaver; 11-09-2017, 09:59 AM.


              Check out my expansion to the Realm of Brass and Shadow

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Samudra View Post
                As usual @Sacredos your posts are a pleasure to read
                Thank you very much!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thank goodness I thought I was completely confused about these words, and I still am, but I am not the only one.

                  Regarding my Gaul and Irish example, along with some other European beliefs I am looking into, I just wanted to know if it was as homogenized as certain websites were claiming with things like, "And this concept of libation can be seen across the European continent" and "Gods always have had different portfolios to reflect the area they govern throughout European history". Indeed some things that I have read use another category like "Western religions" to encapsulate this idea.

                  My view is that it can't possibly be that homogenized, but texts and websites were much more interested in portraying their (the belief systems) characteristics as universal or systemic. For example, even though Samudra and I are Asian in certain respects, there are so many distinguishing factors between our paths and roads of living that to use a term like "Asian religions" would be a disservice to our cultures and values. So I am not going to accept that of Europe either, out of respect if nothing else.

                  But yes, I need a change of pace so I'll come back to anthropology a bit later, but thank you for your insight, I did read everything.


                  How can I know if what I claim I know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I might not know? How can I know if what I claim I don't know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I do know?
                  -Zhuangzi

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ostarion View Post
                    Regarding my Gaul and Irish example, along with some other European beliefs I am looking into, I just wanted to know if it was as homogenized as certain websites were claiming with things like, "And this concept of libation can be seen across the European continent" and "Gods always have had different portfolios to reflect the area they govern throughout European history". Indeed some things that I have read use another category like "Western religions" to encapsulate this idea.

                    My view is that it can't possibly be that homogenized, but texts and websites were much more interested in portraying their (the belief systems) characteristics as universal or systemic. For example, even though Samudra and I are Asian in certain respects, there are so many distinguishing factors between our paths and roads of living that to use a term like "Asian religions" would be a disservice to our cultures and values. So I am not going to accept that of Europe either, out of respect if nothing else.

                    But yes, I need a change of pace so I'll come back to anthropology a bit later, but thank you for your insight, I did read everything.
                    You are absolutely correct that that sounds incredibly suspicious, and is probably drivel. European religious traditions are not homogenized at all, in fact, they're incredibly fractious. You are absolutely correct that a lot of people have motivations to try to... present certain religious traditions as universal, or wide spread. Or with older texts, scholars were stuck in their 'the Greeks and Romans are the best' or their 'The Germanic Peoples are the best' phases. Both of these phases had the Aesir or the Theoi sort of dominate Europe, with other, less well known traditions, dominated by their presence. So it's in this period where Nuada gets slapped with the idea he's just Tyr, or The Dagda is actually just Thor. As you might expect, these tend to be linked with European notions of Ethnic Supremacy, so, Slavic, Celtic, Finnish, probably Basque religions, etc, all sort of get dominated by these 'favored sons' of Western Culture.

                    Thankfully we have moved past that. At least in academia, pop culture, not so much. The best example of this is 'The Celtic Pantheon'.

                    There is no Celtic Pantheon, but you will see this idea presented in big pieces of Western Media. The game Smite, or Dungeons and Dragons, for instance, just have 'The Celtic Pantheon' as a classification system for Gods. In Smite, for example, they have the following Pantheons: Norse, Greek, Mayan, Chinese, Hindu, Egyptian, Roman, Japanese, Celtic. So, the game developers have seen it fit to differentiate the Greeks and Romans, which is something I can get behind, but have just made 'Celtic' a Pantheon. This, currently, includes two Gaulish Deities (Cernunnos, Artio) an Irish Deity (The Morrigan), and an Irish Hero (Cu Chulain). So, currently, they are including figures from Gaul, and Ireland in the same Pantheon, with the theoretical opportunity to include Welsh, and Brythonic Deities in this classification. These are cultures that are totally on different pages, with some artistic, cultural, and linguistic connections. In Dungeons and Dragons 5e, the game presents four real-world Pantheons, the Egyptians, Norse, Greeks, and the Celtic Pantheon who happen to include Irish, Welsh, Gaulish, Brythonic, and Roman (Silvanus) Deities all mushed together. Totally ignoring the accuracy of these contrasted to other Pantheons presented, both of these pieces of Western Media chose to mush together about... twelve hundred years of cultural traditions from a whole host of cultures in Western Europe who are not religiously connected.

                    You will see this idea talked about in other places, especially online, but it's not true. There's not even technically a Gaulish Pantheon, you would have The Gods of the Veneti, and the Gods of the Moselle, the Gods of the Remi, etc. When I present the Gaulish Gods in my game, I normally have them banded together in a Confederacy of Pantheons, held together by the few wider-reaching Deities (Cernunnos, Epona) and the Tribal Gods (the Teutates. Teutates isn't an individual, but a classification of Deity, each specific tribal patron would be a Teutates) all sort of working together with a history of fighting each other. There was probably also no Irish Pantheon, sort of. The notion of the Tuatha de Danann was probably widespread, but everyone would be worshiping a different selection of larger, and very regional figures. They would all be members of these Divine Tribes of Danu, but the ones the people of Cashel and Emain Macha are probably worshiping a different collection of Deities, with potentially some overlap with bigger figures like The Morrigu (which explains why the exact members of the triad are unclear) or The Dagda.

                    So, yes, that's my example of how there's no 'European Unity,' you are absolutely right to have been suspicious about that. Libation, and the idea of Gods having Portfolios are not-Pan-European just to touch on those two examples you used. I mean, offering liquid drinks to a Deity was probably present all across Europe (and probably most of the world honestly, it's just a form of sacrifice of consumable goods) but the reasons for it, the method, the specific drink offered, that will all be different, meaning they are different things that just so happen to have an English word that collectively groups them together. The idea that Gods have portfolios is a Greco-Roman dominance thing, the Irish don't have portfolios as much as they're... really good at their job. They're not The God of Blacksmits, but they are The Blacksmith God. The differentiation of those might be tricky if English isn't your first language, so another way to explain it is that where Hephaestus is a patron of smiths, the God who the blacksmiths pray to, Goibniu is just a really good blacksmith, like, beyond mortal skill.

                    It's awesome that you noticed this stuff was drivel Ostarion. If you're looking for resources on the Irish Gods, I suggest Ireland's Immortals: A History of the Gods of Irish Myth by Mark Williams, and Celtic Gods and Heroes by Marie-Louise Sjoestedt for the Gauls. Her work is a bit more out of date, but it's very approachable, and does a really good job explaining why the image Lucian and Ceasar give us of the Gaulish religion is nonsense. I think she's one of the first to postulate that Teutates isn't an individual Deity, but a classification of Deity.
                    Last edited by Watcher; 11-09-2017, 07:42 PM.


                    Scion 2e Homebrew Projects:
                    The Šiuneš, The Enduri, The Sgā’na Qeda’s, The Abosom, Lebor Óe In Dea, The Zemi, Nemetondevos: Revised, and Mysteries of the Otherworld.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      thing that annoys me is how little information there is (and how hard it is to find) on preCristian welsh "paganism", i mean we have the mabinogion, which has been quite Christianized, and honestly as far as i can find not much else. as far as i understand the info was mostly destroyed in the reformation (is this true?)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ahather View Post
                        thing that annoys me is how little information there is (and how hard it is to find) on preCristian welsh "paganism", i mean we have the mabinogion, which has been quite Christianized, and honestly as far as i can find not much else. as far as i understand the info was mostly destroyed in the reformation (is this true?)
                        The Welsh Myths are recorded mainly in the 12th century, contrast with the Irish which begin in the 7th, so they are heavily-heavily Christianized by the time they are recorded. They are more representative in many areas of Medieval Wales than any Pre-Christian Wales, though obviously you can see glimpses of the Head Cult with Bran, some sort of Otherworld, and things like that.

                        In general, there is no information about Welsh "Paganism." We might think we might know some possible figures, such as Rhiannon, Llew Llaw Gyffes, and Manawydan fab Llyr, but we know pretty much nothing about what the people believed, how they worshiped, or anything like that. Now, there is a trap laid for people trying to research this, a trap named Iolo Morganwg who flat out made up a bunch of myths, lied about everything, made a bunch of money, and fame off it, before getting caught. He was caught up in the bubbling development of Nationalism in the 18th century, and decided Wales needed more myths, so he literally made up a ton of them, lied about it, and ends up causing a massive amount of damage to the field.

                        So, Welsh Mythology is more damaged simply by time than anything. The Reformation did result in some manuscript burining in Wales which didn't help, but, by the point that the stories were being recorded, Christianity had been around in the region for... eight hundred years? And dominant for most of them. Sadly, it's one of the pre-Christian religions that we have a shadow-of-a-shadow left of it. However! There is always the chance we find more manucripts, or that we find a really amazing archeological site. So, don't lose hope!


                        Scion 2e Homebrew Projects:
                        The Šiuneš, The Enduri, The Sgā’na Qeda’s, The Abosom, Lebor Óe In Dea, The Zemi, Nemetondevos: Revised, and Mysteries of the Otherworld.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          lived in wales since i was 7 and i just wish there was more info

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ahather View Post
                            lived in wales since i was 7 and i just wish there was more info
                            Hm. I assume you have read the existing texts, yeah? The Mabinogion, the Welsh-Arthurian stuff? If not I can direct you to good translations of those! If you have, I have a suggestion that you may not have tried. Don't look for books on 'Mythology,' or anything, look for Archeological texts. Archeologists tend to dig up a lot of stuff that has a religious function, talk about it, but it sometimes fails to 'seep into' other fields.

                            I would suggest checking out any books on Welsh Archeology from the Roman Conquest, and before. That's probably where you'll find the best stuff. And, keep your eye out for Roman interpretations of things. Sometimes they're like insanely wrong, but other times they're actually quite on the ball.


                            Scion 2e Homebrew Projects:
                            The Šiuneš, The Enduri, The Sgā’na Qeda’s, The Abosom, Lebor Óe In Dea, The Zemi, Nemetondevos: Revised, and Mysteries of the Otherworld.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Watcher I've mostly read synopses, and excerpts, and in any case having a look at some different translations would be nice, problem with archaeological texts is so much of it is 'ritual purposes' meaning they have no idea what the item is for, but yeah definitely worth a look.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X