Crusiform bladed Dagger E Bay

[David]

Originally Posted by Ron Anderson

Well then, perhaps neo-pagans broadly like knives and the like. Unlike many practicing buddhists, who would regard this as negative.

I have actually bought some very crude home-made satanic-looking daggers in markets - items poorly made with goat's heads. I've since sold them. And though they'd be quite deadly in an assault, they were unimpressive in every other respect.

It wouldn't suprise me if these were made by neo-pagans, considering the fact that there are reportedly so many popping up everywhere.

The fact is, while many neo-pagans may also be interested in items of historical interest, their religion in no way impels them to practice with items of genuine historical worth. And for the most part, they are no more educated in historical matters than most sectors of the populace.

If they have to own a sword or a dagger, they can as easily pick up some nice witchy looking 20th century fantasy item.

I suspect many do.

This last statement is undoubtly true Ron, though many of my friend actual choose to forge their own blades or buy blades from pagan bladesmiths. Many traditions maintain that the blade you use should be newly made so most will not be using historical daggers for their actual ritual items. But i am afraid that i am not getting your point here. I was not discussing whether modern pagans use historical antique blades in their practice. Most will not. So it would be unlikely that a modern pagan would be moved to buy this particular dagger to use as a ritual knife in their religious practice regardless of the presence of the Green Man on the hilt. I was merely correcting Jim's belief that ritual items like daggers were commonly used communally instead of each practitioner having his/her own. I was also commenting on what i thought was an unusually high percentage of neo-pagans that i know personally who also have a historical interest in blades (just as Gardner did) and who collect them. Is there a connection to the fact that many people who use a dagger regularly in their religious practice also find them an interesting point of further study outside the function of their particular religion. I would have to say probably.
BTW "most sectors of the populous" are really sadly informed on historical matters and seem to have little to no interest in them. As a college instructor i encounter this on a daily basis even amongst those seeking higher education. Interestingly, i have also found that most modern pagans indeed do have a keen interest in history. So if you like i am willing to debate this point from my own personal observations and experiences.
Making a point that the crude, homemade "satanic" daggers you once owned were unimpressive is like saying that the a crudely fashioned crucifix that was once owned and loved by a fervent believer of the Catholic faith was unimpressive. That is, of course, if what you owned truly were ritual tools which were held as sacred by their owners. Many "sacred" items indeed appear "unimpressive" to people outside their own faith. Many Indonesian Dukuns (shaman) for instance, will use the most unassuming tools in their work. Next to a master work keris of royal regalia their own blade might appear to be crudely fashioned and "unimpressive". Yet to him and the people he treats it is a most powerful spiritual tool.
And lastly Ron, please do not confuse neo-paganism with satanism. It's insulting. Neo-pagans are not going to be making daggers for satanist and they are not satanists themselves. This is not really the forum for such a discussion, but if you like to educate yourself further on the subject you can find plenty of info on the web about it. Though it's just a start try Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism

[Jim McDougall]

Well it would seem that Davids concerns for the southward turn on this discussion have come to pass, though I am grateful for having my beliefs corrected. I think he has patently corrected the misperceptions and well instructed us in how to properly observe these clearly volatile areas of discussion.I will be sure to approach my interpretations of neopaganism with newly enlightened respect.
I had hoped that we could focus on the dagger and the interesting motif, but the rather personal demeanor has become counterproductive so I will thank Archer for posting it, and participants for the most interesting contributions.

Best regards,
Jim

[David]

I agree with you Jim that our discussions should indeed remain focussed on the dagger at hand. I see no reason, however, why this discussion needs in any way to be over simply because we were temporarily side tracked. I think that Tim's postings of other everyday items from the period that have used similar imagery (Green Man, dragons) should be sufficient to support that there was probably no occult intent in the creation of this dagger. Perhaps we can continue the discussion with this in mind.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by David

I agree with you Jim that our discussions should indeed remain focussed on the dagger at hand. I see no reason, however, why this discussion needs in any way to be over simply because we were temporarily side tracked. I think that Tim's postings of other everyday items from the period that have used similar imagery (Green Man, dragons) should be sufficient to support that there was probably no occult intent in the creation of this dagger. Perhaps we can continue the discussion with this in mind.

I believe we are in accord David, and that we should proceed with caution as we consider more on the most interesting motif and possible associations for the use or provenance of the dagger.

All the best,
Jim