Viking ship in Norway buried near cult temple, feast hall and funeral mounds | Hacker News Reader

Viking ship in Norway buried near cult temple, feast hall and funeral mounds

livescience.com

64 pointsdiodorus47 comments

This topic was also discussed one week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25065921

According to this article:

https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/xl/i-arhundrer-har-haralds-sl...

This has been known as a burial place for quite some time, and when they first found it they put the pieces in a barn, and then burnt it some time later.

Intentionally or by accident?

I don´t think they understood the significance or cared enough.

For those interested there is an "Archaeo-Chat" on the 'Archaeology Soup' Youtube channel with one of the people working on the excavation, Christian Løchsen Rødsrud, Associate Professor - Department of Archaeology, University of Oslo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkhwZ1yCF1c

In the 21st century should we continue to use words like "cult" to refer to non-Abrahamic cultures.

The choice of words colour our view of older societies and does not give a fair and objective narrative.

The academic usage of the word cult is quite different than the common usage, the common usage is the one that has relatively recently acquired a deragatory meaning.

I’m not in favor of taking words, misusing them, and then taking that misuse as standard and saying nobody should use them.

I came here to give a shout-out to the earlier, established use of cult to mean small religion - before it was hijacked by people like Walter Martin to demonize religions they didn't like.

> The academic usage of the word cult is quite different than the common usage, the common usage is the one that has relatively recently acquired a deragatory meaning.

Words used for non-Abrahamic Religions: Myth, Legend, Cult, Folklore, Pagan, Heathen, Infidel, Idolator, Disbeliever/Non-believer.

All of these words inherently have a derogatory, racist meaning. This should be classified as racism and is as bad as, or worse than Nazism[1][2] but since 2/3rd of the population follows one of the Abrahamic Religions it is given a pass.

1. Read up on Goan Inquisition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition#Persecution_of...

2. Mughal India ~ The Biggest Holocaust in World History: https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust...

Why don't we start calling all religions cults instead. That would solve the problem of word usage you're talking about.

I don't know if this is the case in English, but in Spanish the equivalent word "culto" doesn't mean "unimportant", "minor" or "fringe/dangerous". In fact, the Catholic (Abrahamic!) religion is referred to as a "culto", as is the Jewish religion and yes, also the religions of indigenous people. "Freedom of religion" is referred to as "libertad (freedom) de culto".

I read "cult" in the title of this article with this mindset, maybe influenced by my native tongue. Was I wrong?

Probably not, the Latin "cultus" means worship of a god and is value-neutral; the vernacular English meaning of "cult" as "new religious movement that I don't like" is quite recent. A catholic church having a budget line for "cult expenses" (that's a case of wine and a box of communion wafers) wouldn't raise eyebrows within the congregation.

That said, is there a temple without cult? After all a temple is a building to worship a deity. That sounds like a poor translation.

Buddhist temples don't necessarily worship deities as far as I know.

Depends on the tradition or school or however the divisions are named I think. I don't possess a deep understanding of Buddhism but I've visited shrines that are dedicated to different gods/bodhisattvas like Tara or another one I don't remember. Maybe that's different than a temple though, these were shrines up in the Himalya. And the line between deities and bodhisattvas or humans doesn't seem so clearly delineated as it is in Abrahamic religions. Buddhism and "Hinduism" are intensely complex and interesting religions or sets of beliefs to me.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult "In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or by its common interest in a particular personality, object or goal. This sense of the term is controversial, having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia, and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.[1][2]:348–56 It is usually considered pejorative."

I am sure the Catholic church would object to being called a cult in the English speaking world, do realise that a different set of laws might apply to a cult as against a religion.

The Catholic Church uses the term cult to refer to the movement around the veneration of particular saints, ex: The Cult of Saint Joseph.

I looked it up just to be sure:

> A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

Based on the article, this seems to have been the dominant religion in the area. Norse and Rus ship burials are fairly well-documented so I must agree with the grandparent: using the word cult seems quite derogative.

I don’t think the modern usage of the word cult is the only one though. In literature about polytheistic or shamanistic cultures you’ll often encounter the word “cult” without it being derogatory. Like “Cult of Dionysius” or Mazu cult. It’s just a word that has to be understood in context.

A good test would be to use "Cult of Jesus" or "Cult of Mohammed" - either of which are actually historically/theologically accurate terms.

I bet that would set few heads rolling, figuratively and perhaps literally.

They make sense to me. Especially early or pre-establishment Christianity. They were a “cult of Jesus” within the context of both Judaism and Roman religious life.

Very much so. They had to operate literally underground and use codified signals and emblems to avoid prosecution (social or otherwise).

There's nothing suggesting that this burial site was used by people who weren't Norse pagans like most other people in areas settled by the Norse at that time.

Your point would have been accurate if this find had indicated a cult of Odin or something, and that those worshippers didn't have the same practices their surroundings had.

Pagan is another word that should be dropped even more certainly than cult.

Pagan is the word Christians used for non Christian religions starting after the Roman state converted, not the word anyone used for themselves.

Fair enough. English isn't my first language, so I basically go with what the dictionary says, in this case "An adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity". :)

Pagan is merely derived from the Latin word for “rural” or “rustic” because Christianity took hold in Roman cities first and non-Christian Roman gentry held out in the countryside.

Mostly, but I don’t think a Christian would call a Muslim or a Jew ‘Pagan’. It’s more of a synonym for polytheism.

Sect would probably be the same noun without the derogatory connotation.

I'm not sure... I've heard "sect" used in a derogatory sense in English, as in "sectarian".

I think sect implies a factionalism or mutual exclusivity that doesn’t generally fit for ancient polytheistic religions.

>authoritarian, charismatic leader.

you mean like the pope?

Welcome to Protestantism. :-)

French as well.

'Lieux de culte' is just a generic place of worship and is applied to mainstream ones (e.g., Catholic churches) as well as less common religions.

Anthropologist use the word cult to refer to Abrahamic religions as well. You are misconstruing the word, which in this case means systematic worship and veneration. You cannot use layman definitions to critique academic word use.

Or should we instead rather expand words like "cult" to refer to Abrahamic cultures too?

Words like "cult" or "pagan" were used as derogatory terms to belittle non-christian cultures, much of which do not exist today.

Academia should be thorough in cleaning up the vocabulary, if not out of politeness, at least as a means to avoid bias.

If John Doe's CV read, "Barbarian John Doe" or "Cult leader John Doe" - where objectively neither of them were true. Bias sets in at the very beginning.

Livescience dot com is not academia. I would like to see the atrocious state of science reporting improve, but it's not going to happen there on a web that's dependent on ad impressions.

It is not uncommon for some religious groups to distort or manipulate academic output, so what is obvious nonsense today becomes a fact a decade in the future.

If I understand you correctly, you're reasoning that the word cult is a derogatory term aimed at non Semitic religious practices. I don't think that reasoning seem sound, and here's why.

Firstly, the negative connotation is but the most recent way the word has been used to color something in an immoral or bad way. Even using the word cult in a secular way (“the cult-following of Twilight Zone”) seem to be older, and more positive overall.

Secondly, the word cult is a useful and suiting word in religious science when referring to religious worship and devotion - often aimed at a particular phenomenon within a larger religious context, such as a specific deity in a pantheon (in this light, the article use of the word seem less fitting).

Third, and I may be wrong on this one as I base it on pure intuition. From a Semitic perspective, other religious practices has been viewed historically as less legitimate, more primitive or outright as false practices at odds with say, Christianity. Those “heretic” practices has often been linked to Satan himself, causing many religious or spiritual traditions to be regarded as simply Satanic cults. Of course, this is negative press for the accused - but Satanism is also a Semitic religious idea.

My point is lost, but Should we continue to refer to Satanism as an immoral threat to society?

My point is simple, can it be simply a "temple".

1. “the cult-following of Twilight Zone” - it is immediately obvious that it is a fan club.

2. No religion today would like to be termed a cult. And there are also legal reasons.

3. Should we apply a "Christian/Islamic world view" on cultures some of which are more sophisticated and liberal than christianity. It is wrong to assume Christianity as a religion is "normal" or a benchmark. The old religions around the world have more in common with each other than with Christianity or Islam.

Is what is considered a 'temple' and what is not considered a 'temple' something all laypeople and scholars agree on?

(anecdotally, I've discovered some people have very strong reactions to the word 'temple' being used for certain buildings, and I am curious to know why - haven't figured out why for the people I know yet, but be aware it's not going to be a conflict-free term either)

First time I ever hear about the word "temple" causing strong emotions. Are you referring to disagreements in Jewish schools of thought whether a prayerhouse should be called "temple", "synagogue" or something else?

I've heard Jews and Christians having issues with their own buildings, and other buildings being called 'temple', so all I know is that's not the silver bullet if you're trying to do a word swap. I think the right way to go is to generalize so we're not reading more into it than we know, "religious building" or "religious site", "religious area", or maybe "ceremonial building" if you're not sure the nature of the use. On the other hand, if you are certain about what it was, then you can be specific and it won't be wrong or need correcting.

As others have mentioned, the academic usage is value-neutral. Moreover, the more recent vernacular with pejorative connotations doesn't mean "non-Abrahamic cultures", but rather a new religious dogma often centered around a single living deity or prophet and often exploitative. Note that this usage is sometimes applied to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons (Abrahamic) and is not applied to Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, etc (non-Abrahamic).

Maybe because they don't really know which cult the temple belonged to. There were many smaller cults in those days like Mithraists for example. Could even have been a Christian cult centered around some martyr or saint.

Mithraists, in Norway, 1200 years ago?

Sure why not, they were in the british isles in the 5th century. I only used it as an example because I'm reading a book about them atm. ;)

Mithraism was present in England only because Roman soldiers from else in the Empire were stationed there (the Roman army was the major factor in the spread of Mithraism). However, no Roman soldiers ever set foot in Norway, so no, it is not a reasonable hypothesis that Mithraism existed in Norway in the first millennium.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com