Talk:Norse mythology

Missing image
Cscr-former.png
Former featured article candidate

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates (where the individual nomination does not exist) please check the archive. Once the objections have been met you may resubmit the article for featured article status.

Moved from article

This may reflect a pragmatic and empirical approach to life that contemporaries might label as "existentialist" or "Darwinian." In his work "The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans," Hans Gunther links it to the "naturalistic" views of Thomas Jefferson and other scholars of the Enlightenment.

An important insight into the laconic and pragmatic character of Norse mythology often neglected in encyclopedic works is that the Nordic peoples evolved in very harsh frost-zone environments of this planet, much like the Eskimos, and were very dependent on developing forms of technology to clothe themselves and survive cruel winters and fish in violent oceans in nasty weather. For fishermen (a relatively high proportion of the Scandinavian population) the outlook was bleak; they stood a much greater chance of dying at sea than living to a ripe old age. (This is reflected in the lack of middle-aged and elderly men buried in old cemeteries of Norwegian fishing villages relative to old women or young children of both sexes who died from disease). The Viking ship, referred to as "a poem carved in wood," was "high tech" for its era, as was Viking navigation. The Viking sword reflected advanced metallurgical skills. The Germanic peoples developed their own "runic" alphabet called the "futhark." Relative to other societies of the time, the Norsemen were an innovative "techno" people, and their attitude towards religion reflected a "technological" approach to life. To this day, Norwegians, Icelanders, and other Scandinavians (to include the Finns, who are actually more "Finno-Ugric" than "Nordic") have one of the highest literacy rates and book, magazine, and newspaper consumption rates per capita compared to other peoples on the planet. Scandinavia is also ahead of most other areas of the world in terms of the number of high tech companies per capita. This may have something to do with the sub-arctic Norse winters; when it's dark and freezing for eighteen hours a day, one hasn't much to do besides read, tinker and philosophize.

When one reads through the Heimskringla and other histories of the Viking era and its aftermath, and counts up who commits what atrocities, one does not necessarily get an impression of Christian moral superiority. The Vikings go from raiding and harrying each other as pagans in "intramural" tribal contests to William the Conqueror's utterly brutal conquest and consolidation of Britain as a "Christian." We see the Crusades where Christianized Germanic peoples massacre Islamic peoples in the name of Jesus who they previously peacefully traded with as heathens. "Christian" government also seems to be less decentralized and more intolerant, idelogically driven, and bureaucratic than in pagan times. In some instances we go from occasional "heathen" human sacrifices to massive "Christian" witch hunts and witch burnings. Is this progress? With the advent of Christianity we do not necessarily get rid of aggression, social injustice, and immorality, we simply rearrange and skew the style, motives, subtlety, and ideological nature of these things.

This is analogous to how Christian theology changed during the Crusades or during the America's horrific Civil War, when Northerners grimly sang about the "terrible swift sword (of the Lord)" while watching seemingly endless streams of loved ones come home in coffins or permanently maimed, compared to the brand of Christianity practiced in more normal times.

I found all of the above dubious/POV, strangely/poorly written, and/or exteraneous. Have a look to see if you think it can be rewritten and merged into this article, or articles elsewhere.

Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 02:14, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you think there is a lot of POV and extraneous comment in the above, well, yes, I tend to agree with you, but I also see a lot still remaining. Take just a statement like "Few other mythic systems can have as bleak a vision of the future as the ancient Scandinavian". This is a very broad statement which does not take into account the fact that in the dark ages most of christianity offered an extremely bleak view of the future for most of the faithful, and for all of the unfaithful (of which tere were many), to name but one famous mythic system. And all of the article seems to consider Norse mythology as stable through the centuries, when in fact there is as stark contrast between the early, dark stories and something that came long after like Trymskvida, which is full of pranks and merriment, and reflects the lighter world view of the last centuries of pagan belief in Scandinavia. AlainV 03:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course, and I did not mean to suggest that the article as it now stands is perfect, nor that the material I removed is all bad. I encourage you to salvage anything you find important, and to make as many additions and edits as you feel are needed to explain things with a bit more perspective. I noticed a strong slant towards finding a "uniqueness" about norse mythology and culture, which may not be entirely without merit, but simply was not justified by the material provided. That said, overall, do you like the new format? Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 18:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and I have a good idea of what you refer to by a concern (if not an obsession) with finding "uniqueness", since I encountered it several times during my vacation travels through Sweden, and before and after these summer excursions, in my readings. AlainV 04:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

advice

There is some good advice in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#Norse_mythology on how the page might be improved. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 05:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge Anglo-Saxon mythology ?

I am thinking of merging Anglo-Saxon mythology into this article, and Anglo-Saxon gods into Norse gods, etc... Thoughts? Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 16:25, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to merge Norse mythology with Anglo-Saxon mythology. The best solution would be to have an article named "Germanic mythology" with subsections, such as "Norse mythology", "Anglo-Saxon mythology", "Gothic mythology", "Saxon mythology", "Vandalic mythology", etc. However, only "Norse mythology" is well-known.

You cannot say that Norse mythology included Anglo-Saxon mythology. They were related but not identical, and Norse mythology did not include Anglo-Saxon mythology. One difference that shows this is that Frigg and Freya are two goddesses in Norse mythology. In Anglo-Saxon and in other Germanic mythologies, they were one and the same.--Wiglaf 17:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good point, thanks for your input, and good recent edits BTW. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 17:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although it seems that could likely be a mistake by Snorri et al, trying to fit different religious theories into a complete system... =S

Thanks, you have been doing a good job as well.--Wiglaf 18:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Greenland

Sorry about that, I knew Iceland had been a bastion of old norse culture, and assumed Greenland to have been similar. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 19:15, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The latest theory of why the Greenland settlement died out is that the Greenlanders, were too "good christians". The clergy actively forbade the greenlanders of following pagan ways, such as learning "pagan" hunting techniques from the Inuits. Since the Greenlanders tried very consciously to live like good Christian farmers, the deteriorating climate led to malnutrition, which lead to extremely high mortality among young women (the childbearing part of the population).--Wiglaf 19:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The nine worlds

First of all, I have to say: "Hail warriors!"

This is the first time after some months that i took a look at the norse mythology page. I remember that there were described the nine worlds there. I wonder why you guys removed it. I also remembered that there were described ten worlds in all.

YGGDRASIL has three levels + the well etc.: Hvergelmir, Mímisbrunnr, Urdarbrunnr

HIGHER LEVEL: Alfheim, Asgard, Vanaheim

MIDDLE LEVEL: Jotunheim, Midgard, Nidavellir, Svartalfheim

LOWER LEVEL: Helgardh, Muspelheim, Niflheim

Those in italics are the worlds that usualy get lost. The problem is that I don't know which nine of them are the right ones, because in different sources there are different combinations of them. For instance:HELHEIM, NIFLHEIM, JOTUNHEIM, NIDAVELLIR, SVARTALFHEIM, MIDGARD, ALFHEIM, VANAHEIM, ASGARD or Asgard, Ljossalfheim, Midgard, Svartalfheim, Hel, Jötunheim, Muspelheim, Vanaheim, Nifelheim

Here in this encyclopedia I found out that Hel is a part of Niflheim and now I'm totally confused about everything...

Or it all depends on different periods or places in the norse history?

--Krofek 13:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, we do have Norse cosmology, but it could use some improvement, and I agree it could be linked more prominently. dab 08:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The "nine worlds" or nine "heimar" 'homes' are only mentioned in extant texts in a single line in the second stanza of the Völuspá. All attempts to identify them exactly are guesswork. But secondary sources often don't indicate this is guesswork. Jallan 17:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What you are talking about here is actually the hebrew "tree of life" which you can see under the article about kabbalah. This has nothing to do with Norse Mythology, but I have seen it linked to norse mythology in new age books. Norse mythology is NOT celtic, not anglo-saxon mythology, and "the nine worlds" should not be mentioned at all in the article in my opinion. Try to keep it scholarly. --SWA 01:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ásatrú

Should we merge this with Ásatrú? Kwertii 05:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even the name "Ásatrú" is 19th century. Ásatrú builds upon Norse mythology but you can't bundle them up together. There should be links of course... --Wetman 08:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

while you're at it, can someone fix the horrible pronunciation hints on Ásatrú? dab 08:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wonder whether "halm" should be renamed to straw, as that's what swedish "halm" usually refers to.. =S

Norse Mythology

The Norse mythology article must certainly not be merged with Anglo-Saxon Mythology. It would be preferrable to follow the suggestion above: to create a file on Germanic mythology and then have both under that heading. One mention of the Norse mythology file, it would be more desirable to have smaller sections that great big large ones. Couldn't Creation of the World and Ragnarok be one single page or even two shorter pages? Just a minor suggestion.

There is already such a page:Germanic mythology. You're welcome to work on it.--Wiglaf 14:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Table

I have adapted the nice table at Celtic mythology to this article. I am not sure of the colours, though.--Wiglaf 09:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed it. It was apparently not appreciated.--Wiglaf 11:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, Wiglaf, one person complained, and that was about the quarrel with the TOC, not the table itself! I think it's very useful. I went to edit the article, thinking to move the table, but realized I don't know what in the code it is that places the table where it is, I'm too ignorant to mess with it. Try to put it back, please! Why not put it on the right, and put the runestone image somewhere further down? Btw, the article could do with a few more images, surely. (I'm not knowledgeable enough about this to find appropriate ones, but it can't be that hard for someone who is, I should think.)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 12:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, Bishonen, here it is. Go ahead and make your edits :-)--Wiglaf 12:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sorry about my table complaint, Wiglaf. I have probably not given it enough thought to hold a definite opinion. I just voiced my spontaneous impression that it is not very useful, but I will think about it again, and I will certainly not dwell on the point. dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you're right about the main problem with the table, i.e. that many of the links go to non-substantial articles. Hopefully, they will be more accessible with the table and fleshed out in time. Another solution could be to remove those links that don't go to real articles.--Wiglaf 08:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yes -- I guess a have grow a bit allergic to WP "listmania", but I think this particular list does make some sense in this particular article. Maybe more in the sense of an index though, i.e. the table does not necessarily need to be right at the top. But it can of course be useful to give an overview of characters. dab (ᛏ) 11:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cultural perspective

I've been bold with the cultural perspective paragraph above the subsections, although I don't like to be when it involves deleting contributions. I think the graph only tenuouosly connected with the subject, though, as well as misplaced (compare my argument on WP:FAC today). I've included the protest about Tollund man (briefly) in the appropriate place, which is the previouos section. Here is the deleted paragraph:

Another problem is the lack of quantitative data on the degree of certain behaviors relative to other societies. The Norsemen had slaves, but so did everyone else; what is significant is that they had a large free farmer or "bonder" class which participated in parliamentary "things", later reflected in the large English yeoman class of the Middle Ages, and never had a large peasantry, slave class, or pyramidal social structure as did societies further to the south. This was a very "middle class" society. Most men in Germanic and Norse society were free men and were expected to carry a weapon such as a sword or spear as a mark of their manliness (recorded by the Roman writer Tacitus in his work "The Agricola and the Germania.") Their indulgences in human sacrifice were generally more sporadic and less characterized by institutionalized "superstition" relative to other societies of their day. The thought patterns of their leaders were very secular. Getting back to the Tollund man, we have no written accounts that explicitly interpret the cause of the hanging. It could have been no more "Odinic" (or more accurately, related to "Tyr," as explained later) than the hanging of outlaw horse thieves and bank robbers in the old American West. Truth be told, we just do not know what the real motivation was, and the scholars who associate Tollund man with "Odinic sacrifice" simply because Odin was associated with death by hanging (among dozens of other associations) may be telling us more about their biases than about the real Tollund man.
--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 14:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good move. I have been bothered by this part for some while. The info is not exactly incorrect, but I share your objections.--Wiglaf 14:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S.

Wiglaf, with the slowness of the servers and you and me editing at the same time, I think we may have been tripping each other up. For my part I haven't gotten any edit conflicts, but look at the History! I'll just reinsert the "Cultural perspective" heading--did you mean to remove it?--and then I'm out, you go ahead and edit.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 14:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No go ahead! I'll try to look for some nice pictures to add later, and I have a bunch of exams to correct anyway. I removed the "cultural perspective" heading too fast. I see now that there were subsections under it. Sorry.--Wiglaf 14:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I have exams to grade, too. ;-( I'll be back in a couple of hour and fiddle around a little, unless you let me know that that's what you're planning too. In any case, please don't go thinking I know anything about this stuff. Or I know what all Swedes learn in school, which leaves me with a bit of a hankering to insert something sarcastic about Götiska förbundet and Fritiofs Saga under "Cultural perspective" :-). I'll resist it, though, as those guys were more into heroes and, well, uh, manliness, than gods, if I remember it right, and in any case somebody with more knowledge ought to write actual content here. (A scruple which doesn't necessarily bother all contributors, I realize.) Clearly some scholars and specialists have been involved in the article, are you one of them? I hope they haven't all taken off. It'll take somebody who's done research in the area to divide the bibliography (which is in some ways very impressive) in the way I requested on WP:FAC, probably.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 15:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I may return after half past nine tonight, but otherwise I won't do anything more today. I have actually written very little in this article, and my additions have mostly consisted of fiddling with the text. I also hope that some real specialists are around to do some work. Good luck with correcting the exams! :-)--Wiglaf 15:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good editing!--Wiglaf 08:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

various concerns

I agree that oral tradition is essential, and is rightly mentioned in the article. But "runes"? I don't want just to start deleting stuff, and I don't consider myself an expert, but what amount of Norse mythology has been preserved in runes? there's Eggjum stone (~200 characters), but afaik, that's about it. dab (ᛏ) 11:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Very little, I guess. The main contributions from rune stones are images from the legends, such as Thor fishing the Midgard serpent and the saga of the Völsungs.--Wiglaf 11:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

true, we should mention the depictions. They are certainly much more conclusive. dab (ᛏ)

Absolutely. I wish we had OlofE here. He knows more about rune stones than I do. I'll try to contact him and ask if he has time to contribute with more specific info.--Wiglaf 12:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"sometimes even referring to it as the work of the Devil." I think this is a cliche. The people who actually bother to write down the pagan legends usually treat them with respect. Snorri certainly did, and his own opinion is clearly set apart from the story itself. If we do say the legends were distorted by Christian scribes, we should give examples. The Edda appears untouched. So does Beowulf. Chrisian propaganda does appear in Saints' vitae who supposedly converted pagans, but I cannot think of any text that seems to have been rewritten with a Christian agenda. dab (ᛏ) 12:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess the men wrote down the stories did so to preserve them and so had a more positive attitude towards the traditions. IIRC, common priests did demonize the gods in order to compete with the beliefs and practices that people had in secret.

sure, I don't dispute this. But here, if I understand correctly, the point is to evaluate the reliability of the sources, i.e. Edda etc. dab (ᛏ)

Yes, my mistake. That part should probably be removed.--Wiglaf 12:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

right at the beginning of the "Germanic worship" section: "Icelandic scholar Magnus Magnusson, author of "Viking: Hammer of the North," suggests that there was a stoic, pragmatic, rationalistic side to the Nordic character" — how controversial is this? To talk about "the Nordic character" already sounds fishy to me, and to attribute it such qualities (as opposed to what? myths of barbarians? non-Germans? non-'Aryans'? I must say "Viking:Hammer of the North" does not sound like a very confidence-instilling title, and the whole idea has a sort of 19th century reek to it (I mean, not to say that Scandinavians had common sense. I suppose they had as much as anybody. But the underlying, unstated assumptions that seem to lurk behind the statement bother me). It seems to say that other "primitives", as opposed to the noble vikings, are usually utterly naive vis-a-vis their mythologies. dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the point is to show that the Scandinavians were not less sceptic than the ancient greeks. I think that part should be toned downed or greatly reduced, because you're probably not the only one who reacts like that.--Wiglaf 12:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sources

concerning "Sources of information": I think this section should be at the beginning, not at the end. We need to state, that basically we are summarizing the Eddas here. We also need to make clear in what way the scope of this article is different from the scope of the Edda article, what we know from the Gesta Danorum and the Heimskringla, and what other sources there are (runestones). We should also become clear about whether human sacrifice is within the scope of the mythology: we'll end up duplicating the same information here, on human sacrifice, on Tyr, on Goths and on Germanic mythology. It's difficult to draw a line, of course, but common Germanic stuff should probably no appear here. dab (ᛏ) 17:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

weekdays

I fiddled with the weekdays section, but I am not happy yet. Before I did, there was the implication that the names were given independently of Latin, while they are of course translations. Secondly, English is not Norse, so the English names are stricly speaking irrelevant here (but they are of course more or less equivalent to the Scandinavian names, excepting Saturday). Maybe it should be phrased more clearly, or simply reduced to the four names that are named after Germanic gods. Other traces in the language should be added (see Tyr). dab (ᛏ) 17:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image placement

I appreciate the nice images, but I'm starting to think that the article has as many as there's room for now (unless we get a lot more text). Readers will complain if the images victimize the text, which can be a problem on low resolution. Bear in mind that image width takes up a fixed number of pixels while the text does not, so the text gets only the left-overs, if any. The images have just been moved around quite a bit now, which is fine, they should be experimented with. Only I'm not sure about having them staggered left-right, at least the ones that are close together. I'm sure it looked good on the screen of the editor who placed them there, but the lower resolution you have, the more you're going to get a narrow midgårdsorm of a text column meandering between left-right images, which can be a stressful reading experience. It's a bit like that on my 1024x768 screen right now, and some readers are on 600x400 (which must mean that two 300-pixel images placed left and right will exactly meet in the middle). Think about it, but, again, please do not hesitate to experiment--images are easy to move and move back.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 23:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Contemporary" images

There are a few - very few - images on rune stones, with pre-christian mythological themes, only about 5% of the stones are pre-christian to begin with. A portrait or two usually interpreted as Thor (one on a rune block near Vallentuna), Thor's fishing (Ledberg stone) and the Völsunga saga (Ramsund). There's also a few on image stones from Gotland; Völund in the smithy, Odin on Sleipner, some ships interpreted as Nagelfar. Of these, I have only some really bad pictures of the Ledberg stone (which is in pretty bad shape and hard to photograph). The Swedish 'pedia has a picture of Ramsund, and I know I've seen an image stone in an article either on en: or sv: but I can't find it now. (Odin on Sleiper, taken from an image stone in Bunge, was also the motive of a Swedish stamp (5 öre, circa 1965 I believe - it's reddish brown in color)) Those sources are all Swedish material - I can't recall any images outside Sweden but there must be a few. (The Oseberg tapestries for instance, don't they have any religios imagery? What about the wood carvings in Norwegian churches, nothing there?). Finally, there might be interesting rock carvings as well, but I can't think of anything - scenes of fishing, certainly, but I don't think they've been plausibly linked to norse myth (one such image is in the rock carving article). Keep up the good work folks, I'll see if I can find/make an acceptable image of the Ledberg stone. // OlofE 10:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) (oh and I agree that the images should not dwarf the text - personally I consider a contemporary image superior to 19th century romantic renderings but that's personal taste I guess)

Well, I also prefer contemporary images, but Romantic ones are easier to find, and I am not sure about the copyright on photographs of contemporary images.--Wiglaf 10:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True, of course - any image is better than no image. Old depictions or drawings of monuments however should be possible to find, and they're usually much clearer than photographs. Photographs are free only in a pretty narrow time-span (up to 1925 or whatever) so it's rarely worth the effort looking for them imo. I'll have a look around and see if I can find something. // OlofE 15:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks :-)--Wiglaf 15:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A small update; I've located a surprisingly large number of depictions of elements of the Völsunga saga, I didn't realize there were so many of them. The Ramsund carving is both representative and of sufficient quality to fill that slot, but I've been on the lookout for better pictures of it for a long time. Depictions of truly religious entities however, remain scarce. There are a number (about half a dozen) of depictions of Thor's fishing trip, but none of them better than the Ledberg stone, really. I'll try to make a visit there during new year's (with my new camera, heehee). The image stones of Gotland is the only other major contender, apart from some items I believe are in Norwegian museums. The Norwegian items I'll have a look into at a later time, it's not something I can easily get ahold of. There are also "scary faces" on some older runestones, but I don't believe they're appropriate for an article on religion. // OlofE 12:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

slaps forehead* There's no fishing trip on the Ledberg stone - the scene there is Fenris foot-biting, I dunno why I slipped that way. Anyway, I did go out and snap a shot or two this weekend (like 30 actually but nevermind). This is Fenris, this is a composite of all three scribed sides. I'll have a fishing-trip-picture for you eventually, I promise... // OlofE 11:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Very nice pictures! Well done :).--Wiglaf 12:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this stone might also be of interest for rune articles - the final words of the inscription (on the back side, starting under the wolf and all the way down) is a magical incantation whose meaning is lost today - it consists of the sequence þmk:iii:sss:ttt:iii:l(l)l, read as "þistill:mistill:kistill" (thistle, mistletoe, casket). The cross shape on the side (centre of composite image) suggests christian influence, the imagery pre-christian. The wording lacks specifically religious phrases ("Bisi placed this stone in memory of Þorgautr (...) his father. (Bisi) and Gunna, both (raised the stone) þistill:mistill:kistill"). The stone is "Ög 181" in Swedish archives, it was found in the walls of the previous church on the site and taken out when the new church was built. // OlofE 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Altuna runestone, U 1161, image: Image:Altuna_U1161_20050205.jpg. I have images of the rest of the inscription as well but it's not very interesting apart from the fishing image. This carving has a lot more connection to the myth (than the fenris picture, which could allow for different interpretations - this one leaves no doubt whatsoever): In the picture, you see Tor in the fishing boat. He has baited with the head of an ox, and the Midgard snake has taken the bait. The fight has caused Tor's feet to go straight through the hull of the boat, and he's holding his hammer high, probably he is just getting ready to strike the snake - Tor's fishing companion, Hymer, who isn't in the picture, will soon cut the line and end the fishing. This is to my knowledge one of the clearest depictions of norse gods in any runestones. Image stones from Gotland is the source we should look inte next. I will create an article about the stone on the Swedish WP, for reference (since we don't create individual articles of all runestones on en:). It will be located here, sv:Upplands runinskrifter 1161. // OlofE 11:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I made an edited version of the fishing trip image, at sv:Image:Altuna_U1161_20050205c.jpg, since the contrast was a bit tricky (lousy photo weather and poorly maintained stone). Any suggestions welcome. The raw image is identical to the one I uploaded previously. // OlofE 23:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...and mentions in rune text and placenames ... and stuff

I forgot about mentions in runic text; here goes... The most visible deity in runic text is Tyr. The name itself, and the rune, was used for a long time as an incantation of power. Many old inscriptions consist only of a tyr (T) rune, often repeated or multiplied (a stem with 7 bars on each side for instance). This is especially common in old, short inscriptions on weapons. Beyond that... I have to rummage books for a bit, I can't recall a single mention of other gods. There's placenames, though - Odin, Tor, Frey (Frö), Tyr and Brage all have placenames still extant in Sweden and Denmark (I'm less sure of Norway, Britain, Iceland - there's Torshavn on Færöya at least... maybe some places in Germany?). Associated with this is the phenomenon of the -vi and -tuna placenames of Sweden (plus the -lunda and -åker names, less mysterious and less common). Auxiliary connection to those placenames are indications of popular activities in connection with cult, particularly intriguing is the horse racing and horse fighting as evidenced in the -skede names (Skövde and Enskede for instance, after skeið). The skeið still shows through in the celebration of Lucia and "Staffan stalledräng" in Sweden (incl. Åland and Swedish-speaking parts of Finland) and in Norway. Celebrating religious events with eating horse meat is also examplified by the Swedish king who refused and was rejected and replaced by one who would do so (Blot-Sven) - though the accounts of those events are of course colored by the Christian belief that horse meat was unfit for eating.

Although I'm too lazy/busy to make proper additions to the text, I hope the above gave some more openings to the subject. At least it might expand the text so you can fit in more mages :-) // OlofE 10:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Talkpages Jallan/Bishonen

I'm pasting below an interesting conversation from Jallan's and Bishonen's Talk pages. Well, Jallan's part is interesting.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 20:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doubling in Norse mythology

Hi, Jallan. The Bibliography at Norse mythology seems to have gotten doubled when you edited it, would you like to take a look at it? (I'm uncertain as to which bits represent your changes, I'd better not mess with it.) Incidentally, if you know about this stuff, would you maybe like to turn the primary sources (the eddas) into proper bibliograpical references, from their present sad state? There's also a need (proclaimed by me on WP:FAC) for subdivision of the bibliography into References (=sources actually used for the article) and Further reading, if you're up for it. Several people are working to improve the article now it's been nominated for FAC, but I'm thinking maybe you have the most expertise of them, and that's what the referencing job needs.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 19:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply

I've fixed the accidently doubling of the Bibliography which you informed me of. As to the article in general, it seems to me to have a number of gross errors and dubious statements. For example, what text actually states where Asgard was located, outside of the eumheristic locatation in Turkey by Snorri or the identification with Constantinople in Saxo? And a few sentences later, though Asgard, was previously located at the center of the earth disk, we are told that Midgard lies between Asgard and Niflheim, in apparent contradiction. I think the only sources locating Niflheim at all, locate it in the north. We have a statement about the dualism between Jotüns and gods and a later statement that Norse religion had no clear-cut dualism. The identification of Honir with Vili and Ve with Lodur is very dubious. (That one god replaces another in the same story does not necessarily make them identical, for example the Greek Prometheus, Hephaistos, and Typhon are not identical, though they share traits and story motifs.) The statement that Skuld describes the death of Baldur and fall of the gods seems to be from someone's idioysyncratic theory identifying Skuld with the Vala in the Völuspá. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is certainly not an example of lost mythology, other than a few genealogical traditions. There is an overabundance of Tolkienism here. Unless there has been something discovered I am not aware of, an etymological connection between Old English ent and ettin (= Old Norse jötun) is still considered to be very dubious. And it oversimplifies and claims far too much to say that Tolkien based his Middle-earth on Midgard.

I wonder if something like the article Iceland would prove a good model, that is a series of short summary pieces each linking to a fuller discussion.

I do not see any point in distinguishing between "References" and "Further Reading" in a listing, unless "Further reading" means material not so closely connected to the article. I'm a full convert of the MLA school of documentation and the Harvard scientific style of documentation in which one uses in-text references, usually last name of the author, sometimes year date, and often page number of other indication of location in the work, said work so referenced to found in the Bibliography. This is far easier on the reader than end notes or footnotes and is the recommended style at Wikipedia:Cite sources. That all works in a Bibliography are not referenced is quite acceptable and quite normal.

The Bibliography was mostly added by myself, basically comprising (arguably) the most important reasonably available secondary works in English, one German work that is the current accepted authoritative standard work, and others not so important but reasonably available, whether on the web or in book form or both. I don't think it should be necessary to especially document secondary material that is general knowledge and that can be found in almost every one of the General Secondary Works. Also, if each section of the Norse Mythology article links to a more complete article, that is where fuller documentation would go. In some ways Norse Mythology should be a summary article, summarizing what is more fully expounded and documented elsewhere.

But I agree that some documentation is needed in the article as it stands.

As to citations from primary works, mostly, for Norse mythology, these should have their own articles and many now do. Accordingly, one would do citation by links, that is link to the article on a particular eddic poem or to the Skáldskaparmál and so forth. My plan was to rework the articles on the Eddas, give them more complete Bibligraphies: reasonably full listings of editions of the Old Norse texts and of most English translations, whether on web or only hard published. I have not got there yet. I may try shortly.

Essentially, the Primary Sources section would continue to contain only internal links: a link to the main article on Snorri's Edda, a link to the article on the Poetic Edda, but also an additional link to the article on Gesta Danorum and yet another link to an unwritten article on Fornaldarsögur. Each of these articles would have its own Bibliography. (There might be a few other links also. I suppose Faroese material should be considered Norse, and there ought to be a link to Faroese sources which would contain, among other information, a bibliography to sources for Faroese primary texts and translations. And there are probably other individual works that might be linked to, perhaps dividing the Primary Sources section into Major and Minor.)

There should probably also be an article or section on modern novelistic and fictional use of Norse mythology (beginning with Wagner?). I know enough to at least start one, but have other things I'd rather be doing here, when I have the time.

Jallan 01:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Norse mythology II

Jallan, thank you very much for your full answer. I'm only sorry to say it's a bit wasted on my Talk page, this is far from being my field. I do know about references and bibliographies, I deal with them in my day job as you do, and I have a couple of points there (though I don't honestly know when/if I'll find the time to make them--I'll just say that the WP:FAC hardasses are going to insist on a division into "references used" vs. "further reading", they always do). But that's unfortunately the sum of my competence here, I only got drawn into some superficial copyediting of Norse mythology through voting on it on WP:FAC. Is it OK if I copy your post to Talk:Norse mythology, along with my original question? It's quite an active page at the moment. I hope you'll agree, but I won't do it until I hear from you, in case you'd rather not get inexorably drawn into the Ginnungagap.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 02:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply Norse mythology II

You can copy my post anywhere. I think the Norse Mythology article is far from being a good article at the moment. But when I have time and inclination to write in that area, I generally prefer to work on detailed articles covering a single aspect of Norse mythology and try to get that right, rather than attempt the impossible task of surveying the entire field in a short article. So I'm not the person to dive in and rework it. And I prefer generally working with the primary sources, often throwing out material that has crept in from secondary sources. In respect to mythology and legend, if you can't find it in a primary source, it didn't happen (and anything if that kind must be referenced as speculation if included).

I have nothing particularly against "references used" and "further reading" when that fits, except how do you distinguish if you and other editors together have read all the works listed? To take an example from Norse mythology, that Odin has two brothers named Vili and Ve is something mentioned in some primary texts (both Eddas) and in every secondary text mentioned. So all the works can be listed as references to this.

Anyone insisting that sections called References used and Further reading must appear in every feature-level article, should be requested to first obtain consensus from Wikipedia members to include this as a requirement in Wikipedia:Cite sources. Until that is done, and I doubt such an attempt would succeed, this seems to me to be an advocacy attempt to impose one particular style of reference, one that does not especially fit in an encyclopedia. It makes sense that a book on the subject of Norse mythology might contain a Further reading section listing works discussing Scandinavian culture, Scandinavian history, medieval Icelandic history, a survey of theories on mythology in general, and so forth. It makes far less sense in an encyclopedia where those topic are discussed in other articles with their own references, those articles possibly referenced in a See also section.

Jallan 16:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In respect to mythology and legend, if you can't find it in a primary source, it didn't happen — very true, and, unfortunately, quite to the point here. dab (ᛏ) 21:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interactions with Christianity

I have expanded that section, by summarising a chapter in Ebbe Schön's Asa-Tors hammare (2004). AFAIK, he is Sweden's foremost scholar in Scandinavian folklore and I hope they'll translate the book into English.--Wiglaf 22:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We need a spelling standard!

Someone just changed the article modifying the spelling of Völuspá and a couple of other names. We really need to get our house in order on the issue of a Wikipedia standard for the spelling of Old Norse names.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28Old_Norse/Old_Icelandic/Old_English%29

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Norse_mythology"