Stav and Asatru
The Stav | What is Stav | Origin of Stav | Stav Philosophies | Weapon or Unarmed Training | Stav Stances | Stav and Asatru | Laug In Action or the Water of Life | Stav Haiku | Horse in Iron Age Society | The Stav Runes
As we have on occasion been asked “What relationship has Stav to Asatru?” – “What are their respective similarities and differences?” (and so on), this article has been produced to try to explain and clarify some of these issues. This aim of the article below is simply to shed light upon some of the areas of difference and similarity between Stav and Asatru. It has been compiled for the benefit of anyone interested, but mainly for the benefit of anyone with a degree of familiarity with Asatru but little familiarity with Stav, as we have often found that individuals with a background in some form of Asatru are often surprised at apparent differences they encounter within Stav. We wish to make it clear that no criticism of any individual, group or belief is intended or implied in producing this article, the sole purpose of which is to attempt to address basic approaches favoured by Stav in relation to other methods and traditions, for the purpose of comparison.
Introduction
Firstly it may help to define roughly what is meant by “Asatru” and what we mean by “Stav”.
Historically there were many beliefs, faiths, philosophies and religions in pre-Christian Northern Europe. “Asatrת” appears to be a term first coined, or at least brought to popular attention, in the Icelandic parliament to describe the then contemporary practitioners of Icelandic pagan religion (literally Asatrת means “true to the ֶsir”). The term has since been widely used to describe either the original Pagan or contemporary Neo-Pagan (reconstructed) religion(s) in Northern Europe as a whole, as practiced in either the past or currently in the contemporary period, or equally to describe the practice of religious beliefs of a North European origin by those living in other countries (such as the USA for example).
Generally, Asatru is a slightly “catch all” term (as many individuals or groups may not in fact follow the ֶsir but the Vanir or some other deity/s or mythical entity/s), and some such individuals or groups prefer to use other terms such as “Vanatru” (true to the Vanir), or “Odinist” (a follower of Odin specifically – likewise “Thorist” and so on) while others prefer the term “Forn Sed” (roughly the “Old Way(s)”), – to refer to the practice of Norse pre-Christian beliefs somewhat generically), or “(Norse) Heathen”, or “Pagan” – etc. Likewise there are numerous groups who seek to practice a form of belief based upon closely related, but non-Norse, traditions (such as Saxon, Anglo-Saxon etc traditions).
While it is profoundly not our wish to offend anyone, for simplicity in this article we shall use the term “Asatru” to refer to all followers of contemporary Norse and closely related ethnic/cultural Northern European (neo-)pagan religion(s) and we shall confine the discussion to contemporary rather than historical practices. It is frankly impossible to comment upon any precise beliefs or practices of any specific groups outside the Stav community in this article, not only for the considerations of space and relevance but also because frankly we simply don’t know what they all are (there are many, many such groups worldwide). As a whole, neither Valgarth-Stav specifically nor contemporary Stav generally has any strong links to any other organisation of any kind (although individual members of the wider Stav community may have). As this article will probably mainly be relevant to those involved in some form of Asatru and interested in Stav, if this is the case with you personally we hope you will forgive us if we assume you know what your own specific beliefs and practices are and merely offer an overview and simple critique of Asatru generally for the purpose of comparison.
While Stav as we know it was preserved by the Hafskjold family in Norway, and has since been taught more publicly in the last two decades, there has been relatively little influence or contact between practitioners of Stav and those of modern Asatru generally. This is in part due to the fact that we in Stav have no desire to try to influence modern Asatru as a whole, and most followers of Asatru have little, if any, knowledge of Stav. Inasmuch as Stav stems from the philosophies of Pre-Christian Europe, it may not be unreasonable to consider modern Stav as a form of Asatru (in the generic sense), or for that matter vice versa and consider modern Asatru as a form of Stav. However, while this may be not unreasonable at the broadest extent, in more practical terms there are some major differences in basic form and approach. The principles differences between Stav and Asatru would appear to be :
- *Attitude towards Religion
- *Focus on Historicity *
- *Personal Transmission *
- *Attitude towards Personal Development *
(these areas will be discussed in more detail below) :
Attitude towards religion
/ Stav /
Stav is not a religion/faith/creed/sect etc. While Stav is regarded as a “way of life”, or indeed as a “spiritual philosophy”, there is neither an assumption nor a requirement that a person practising (or indeed teaching) Stav “believes in”, “follows” or “worships” any god, group of gods, or any other form of “supernatural” deity, being, divinity etc, in any way whatsoever (Many people may choose to do so, but that is considered entirely “a matter of their own personal choice, conviction and conscience”). Neither is the simple belief in any god, groups of gods (etc) a definition of practising Stav. Likewise, belief in a god or group of gods (etc) originating outside of Norse or Northern European culture (either as well as, or instead of, the Norse deities) is not considered to be in any way automatically contrary to the practice of Stav. Nor is a broadly atheist or agnostic belief considered incompatible with the philosophy of Stav. While there is a considerable body or lore concerning the old Norse deities within the Stav tradition, and this is taught as part of the framework of the overall philosophy, individuals are left to decide for themselves whether to regard this lore – and the gods themselves – as being literal, metaphorical, or analogical (etc), whether to view such things as being encoded conceptions relating to psychological, ancestral, cultural or environmental factors (etc), or indeed to form absolutely any other interpretation they may choose. In a nutshell, the traditional Stav attitude toward any form of religion or religious element is that this is totally a matter of personal choice.
/ Asatru /
While Asatru is a term which covers a very broad range of categories (and apologies are offered to anyone who considers themselves to practice a form of Asatru who feels any definition offered here or elsewhere in this article misrepresents them) it would seem to be fair to describe Asatru as a whole as a “religion”. Generally it is not an organised religion (in that there is no single, central church-type authority or firmly held universal doctrine etc) and many individuals or groups practise Asatru on a very personal or idiosyncratic basis, but nevertheless Asatru in general represents a religious attitude towards the gods and spirits of Norse and Northern European pre-Christian beliefs. Normally a definition of Asatru might thus be – “the belief in a deity or deities and/or other `supernatural’ beings originating in Norse/Northern European culture”. Many followers of Asatru might add “and only in North European culture” – so while a follower of Asatru may have no religious antagonism towards a follower of e. g. Christianity, Greek Paganism, Hinduism etc, nor toward an Atheist or an Agnostic, some followers of Asatru may automatically tend to regard such a person as, by default, not practising Asatru.
/ Summary of this section /
Stav is a philosophy; Asatru is a form of religious belief. It should be apparent from these definitions that an individual might practice both Stav and Asatru without the slightest contradiction, but it should also be apparent that in general the terms Stav and Asatru are not simply mutually interchangeable.
/ Focus on Historicity /
/ Asatru /
While one can only speak of Asatru as a whole in very general terms, there seems to be a general attitude of regarding the historicity (historical accuracy, authenticity etc) of Asatru as being important. For example – while the following is a very wide generalisation and there is no suggestion this applies to all followers of Asatru – practices described in (for example) an Eddic text or supported by archaeological evidence are often regarded as being in some way more `valid’ or `authentic’ than a practice developed in the last hundred years, or very recently. In general Asatru seems to look back to the close of the official “pagan” period of Northern Europe, circa 1000 years ago, or further back still. Often (but by no means always) practitioners of Asatru may choose to dress in a deliberately antiquated style (generally inspired by the Viking Age), at least for ceremonial purposes, at gatherings etc. Many (again, by no means all) followers of Asatru may change their given names to more Norse inspired names, possibly indicating a deity they worship or admire. Some followers of Asatru seem to regard concepts and beliefs (apparently) held during the pre-Christian period as being almost automatically superior to attitudes, concepts or beliefs of later/other periods. In general, Asatru seems to regard past practices, historical precedent (when supported by historical evidence) etc as a form of validating authority upon current beliefs and practices.
In general, when (for example) wishing to perform a ceremony, followers of Asatru seem automatically to refer to historical (literary, archaeological etc) sources to determine a ritual basis. In place of a fixed doctrine of beliefs, codes of behaviour etc many followers of Asatru look to historical source materials for inspiration. On the whole, Asatru seems to concentrate upon attempting to recreate a religion of the past, as historically accurately as possible, inventing or filling in areas (usually on the basis of the best available academic guesswork) only when a more solid (historically documented) prior model cannot be found.
/ Stav /
Historicity is not a major focus of Stav. Many practitioners of Stav are happy to accept the dating of the creation of the tradition as being over 1500 years ago – this may or may not be objectively historically accurate (it stems from a legend passed down orally by the Hafskjold family that concerns the creation of the Scandinavian 16 stave rune-row, and another legend that concerns the specific origin of their family. These legends were accepted by the Hafskjold family as part of their family’s oral history, and indeed are accepted by many in the Stav community, but these dates and events are neither provable nor disprovable through available historical evidence). However few if any practitioners of Stav regard the historical dating of Stav as particularly relevant. According to the legends of the Hafskjold family, Stav as we know it dates from circa the year 500 and has been practised by the family since this time. Modern Stav is considered to be a continuation of this practice. Oral history naturally cannot be tested in the same was as an archaeological or textual record, but there appears to be no evidence to suggest the family’s legends are inaccurate, there is simply not much concrete evidence either way. Naturally the Hafskjold legends may be just legends, or they may be literally historically accurate, but it probably doesn’t actually matter a great deal either way. Regardless of any theoretical dating of the origin of Stav, no one involved in Stav suggests that nothing has changed within the tradition over the course of centuries. Stav is a living tradition and change is considered inevitable – meaningful (and useful) change is, and has always been, regarded as distinctly desirable. The main focus of Stav for those who practice it is upon its usefulness as a philosophy which can lead to a deeper personal understanding of the universe and ones position within it, and the application of this philosophy to practical fields (such as the martial arts or health and healing methods etc). While many practitioners of Stav use (for example) the Eddic texts or archaeological evidence to inform or shed light upon their practice of the tradition, these are regarded more in the way of tools than as any form of validating (or invalidating) authority. For example, in the practice of the martial arts aspects of Stav the main focus is upon practical combat ability either with a weapon or unarmed and not upon any sense of attempting to either practice or recreate a carbon-copy of an historical mediaeval fighting system. If a teacher develops a more effective technique or method in combat than one previously used, then (as long as the method is in accord with the overall essential principles of Stav, and after suitable rigorous testing) this is adopted in preference to an earlier approach. Likewise, if new insights into the understanding or application of the tradition to e. g. health, the use of rune-staves etc are developed, these too are adopted in the same way. Indeed, this applies to any aspect of the philosophy either in part or as a whole.
Historicity in Stav, when considered at all, is always considered to be less important than practical effectiveness, applicable use, and philosophical meaning. Whether something is 2000 or 200 or 2 years old is not regarded as being as important as whether or not it is actually useful or meaningful, or whether or not it ‘works’. Stav considers itself to be a self-validating system; it validates itself through its own “worth”, “meaning”, “usefulness”, “understanding” etc as a philosophical system, in its applications as a martial art, as a healing method, as a spiritual training – and so on. The level to which an individual practicing Stav can further their own development and understanding through their practice of Stav in turn determines their subjective validation of Stav as a tradition. The historical age of Stav either as a whole or of any individual part is considered to be virtually irrelevant to Stav as a practical philosophy; “understanding” matters to a practitioner of Stav, “historical authenticity” does not.
/ Summary of this section /
The difference in attitude towards historicity between Stav and Asatru can sometimes cause considerable misunderstanding, especially involving those with an historicitical mindset. This occasionally has lead to criticisms of Stav as being “historically unauthentic” as some of its practises are quite naturally comparatively recent additions or adaptations (and despite the fact that no-one involved in Stav claims Stav is in some way “historically authentic” in the sense of “this is exactly how it was done in the distant past”). This form of criticism seems based simply on a misunderstanding of the nature of Stav. For example, the British army can be said to have a history of many hundreds of years. It would seem to be somewhat naןve to describe the present British military as “historically unauthentic” on the basis that its current form greatly differs in some specifics from the form taken during the reign of, for example, William the Conqueror or Henry VIII, as living practices naturally change over time. Contemporary practitioners of Stav regard their tradition in much the same way, as being ‘the current form’ of a continuing tradition, not as a fossilised relic or an attempt to recapture a previous age. Likewise the historical authenticity of Stav has sometimes been questioned due to the relative unavailability of any hard concrete historical evidence for the practice of Stav (by that name) in previous ages. Such criticisms often rather mystify those who practice Stav, as they seem to be rather missing the `point’ of Stav. While Stav is theoretically an ancient tradition (according to the Hafskjold family oral accounts) no one practising Stav regards Stav as being important to them simply because it is “ancient”, rather it is important to them because it is “meaningful”. It would be as meaningful if it were invented yesterday and it would be meaningless were it ten-thousand years old yet philosophically or practically void. Many traditions the world over have `legendary’ origins which frequently cannot be proven historically. For example, many (if not perhaps the majority) of Chinese martial arts claim a theoretical origin from a `legendary’ source, such as a monk from the Shaolin temple, or a legendary Taoist master, or sometimes an Immortal. Very few such arts can ‘prove’ these origins by the standards of academic history (and very few would even think of attempting to do so). Not very many people practising a Chinese martial art or Qi Gong system, or an Indian Tantric or Yogic method (etc) do so simply because of its theoretical history or “historical accuracy”, but rather because of its usefulness to them. Likewise, very few religions or mythologies can actually in any way prove the historical accuracy of the stories relating to their founders or other major figures. Neither Christians nor Buddhists for example seem to feel this is an important determining factor in their respective beliefs. By the same token, neither Odin nor Thor nor any of the other deities of Norse belief have as yet been shown to have an historically provable basis in historical “fact”. This does not seem to make a great deal of difference to practitioners of Asatru. Practitioners of Stav therefore find it slightly difficult to understand why Stav should be questioned based simply upon its “historical” status (rather than practical or philosophical worth) when they themselves do not think this is especially important – while in addition those criticising Stav on an historicitical basis frequently hold beliefs (such as in the literal existence of the god Thor) which are similarly not exactly either “historically” or “scientifically” provable. We feel it would be foolish to simply dismiss a belief in the god Thor based merely upon a lack of historical evidence for his physical existence. By much the same token we think it rather shortsighted to dismiss Stav based upon a seeming lack of historical documentation. In essence, Asatru typically seems to seek to be an historically accurate resurrected religion firmly based upon the documented or otherwise evidenced (apparent) beliefs and understandings of circa 1000 years (or more) ago. Stav seeks to be a meaningful, useful philosophy with roots in the past, adapted to present needs, but looking ever toward the future.
/ Asatru /
As far as we are aware, anyone drawn towards the practice of Asatru is considered free to do so. This includes setting up groups or organisations, and teaching Asatru (or at least their own understanding of it). As Asatru is a recreated religion, there appears to be no specific `validated’ source for any teaching other than the Eddic texts, historical records, archaeological evidence etc. Therefore there is, or seems to be, no great sense of the importance of the transmission of the tradition ‘directly from practitioner to practitioner’. A person who has made a serious study of available literature, feels devotion towards the old Gods, and seeks to put this into public religious practice simply does so, even if they have never before met another practitioner of Asatru. The base-line definition of practising Asatru seems to be a belief in one or more of the old Gods (and/or other beings of mythology). The base-line definition of being a teacher of Asatru seems to be publicly espousing some form of devotion to one or more of the old Gods (and/or other beings of mythology). This is not to in any way imply any individual is not devout in their beliefs, nor that they have not seriously studied the extant mythological literature etc; simply that anyone can become a recognised exponent of Asatru simply by choosing to do so.
/ Stav /
Traditionally, Stav (as it has come down to us) was passed on by word of mouth as a more or less exclusively oral tradition. It was preserved by the Hafskjold family, and taught within the family, from family member to family member, from one generation to the next. Ivar Hafskjold accepted four students from outside his own family and passed on the tradition to them in the same way, through personal training and transmission of the essential principles of the tradition. They in turn have taught others – and thus the process, and the tradition, shall hopefully continue. The concept of personal transmission of the tradition is integral to the understanding of Stav. It is a basic premise in Stav that the philosophy of Stav in its most meaningful form can only be passed on directly, from one person to another, and not simply through a text alone (neither a modern training manual nor even an Edda). The only way to truly learn Stav is personally from a teacher, who in their turn has learnt it personally from their teacher. The only way a person may be recognised as being able to teach Stav is when their teacher recognises them as being able to do so. While each teacher may have their own personal criteria for recognising a student as being able to teach, and may for example place limits on what a student may or may not teach based upon their specific level of ability and understanding, essentially this process is always based upon the personal transmission of the tradition from teacher to student, and the recognition that a student has reached a level of understanding whereby they can meaningfully pass on the tradition, or at least an aspect of it, to others. Without personal transmission from practitioner to practitioner, in depth, repeatedly, over a considerable period of time, a person cannot truly be considered to be practising Stav by any meaningful definition of the term. This is not in any way to imply that others outside the Stav community have not developed wisdom and understanding through other means; simply that what they are doing is not something we recognise as being Stav, in the sense that we use the term.
/ Summary of this section /
It may seem paradoxical to on the one hand say that Stav is an ancient tradition, but on the other hand say that its age doesn’t really matter; that personal transmission from teacher to student is vital, but that the exact date at which the tradition began is fairly irrelevant; that the principles of the tradition are effectively universal and eternal, but that any application or technique of the tradition is changeable and subject to alteration. Nevertheless, this is petty much exactly the way practitioners of Stav view the tradition. For those practising Stav these paradoxes are not contradictions, merely riddles that become understood through practice. Unfortunately (or not) the only way to understand Stav is to actually practice it.
/ Attitude towards Personal Development /
/ Asatru /
As far as we are aware, the main focus of Asatru appears to be the honouring of the various traditional gods, ancestors, spirits of the land (etc). Some forms of contemporary Asatru appear to espouse a moral and/or ethical code. Most seem to promote kinship (both in terms of literally within a family or metaphorically between likeminded individuals). Most forms of Asatru seem to encourage respect for the environment, respect for humans, animals, plants and spirits, and respect for the protection of, and the continuation of Northern European cultural traditions (in almost any form). Some followers of Asatru employ the use of runes in one form or another, but this does not seem to be an essential definition of the practice of Asatru (not all followers of Asatru actively use the runes; while other groups exist who use runes but which are not necessarily followers of Asatru). While we do not wish to misrepresent Asatru in any way, here or elsewhere in this article, it would appear that the main goals of a practitioner of Asatru are (in no specific order) : To honour ones chosen deity(s); to honour ones ancestors; to honour ones environment and/or ancestral lands; to preserve ones traditions; to lead a good life.
/ Stav /
There is a great deal of similarity between Stav and Asatru in some regards. While as we have stated, any actual belief in deities (etc) is regarded simply as a matter of ones personal choosing, Stav also espouses respect for ones ancestors, ones environment and/or ancestral lands, respect for all humanity and all forms of life, both ones own cultural traditions and those of others – etc. Stav does not teach a ‘moral’ code, but it does teach a code of ‘ethics’. Naturally those involved in Stav do their best to lead what they subjectively view as “good lives”. However, Stav also has another focus. Ivar Hafskjold has described this as seeking to learn to “see reality”. To use a somewhat clichיd term, to seek “enlightenment”, although in Stav we usually prefer to describe this as seeking “understanding” or “meaning” in both our own lives and in the universe as a whole. Other than for those whose main focus is the practice of Seid, the practice of Stav is intimately bound to the study and contemplation of the runes, in various forms. The runes represent, or are, the mysteries of existence we seek to unriddle. Stav is considered to be an applied philosophy. In other words we try not to deal simply in philosophical abstractions, but to apply the philosophy of Stav is practical terms. This is viewed as one of the very few ways one can actually learn to understand the philosophy, as one effectively learns and gains understanding through the practical application of the principles. For this reason, students of Stav study and practice one or more disciplines in order to both learn and apply the principles of the philosophy, and thereby (hopefully) arrive at a deeper personal understanding. While a typical application of the philosophy of Stav is the practice of the martial arts, this is by no means the only application, nor the only valid discipline through which an individual can gain understanding. However, the basic concept of the study of a discipline as a training method through which one may “learn to see reality” is integral to Stav practice. At a base-level within Stav, this is generally taken to be the practice of the rune-stances, although usually a student trains in further disciplines, and is expected to attain a high level of both ability and understanding.
/Summary of this section/
Essentially, Asatru takes the form of a religion, encouraging its followers to respect the world, lead good lives, be honourable and behave in a (religiously) devoted manner. Stav essentially takes the form of a spiritual philosophy which, while encouraging many of the same things as Asatru, places the development of wisdom and understanding as its central focus and regards any form of actual religious devotion as purely optional. Again it should be apparent that there is in no way any inherent contradiction between the practice of Stav and the practice of Asatru, simply a difference of emphasis. The emphasis in Stav is very much upon personal spiritual, mental and physical development as a route towards the gaining of wisdom and understanding, but this in no way precludes a belief in the practice of Asatru (although neither does it necessarily require it). ~ By Shaun Brassfield
Related Information
