Talk:Norse mythology

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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)

Asatru

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

Even the name "Asatru" is 19th century. Asatru 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 Asatru? 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 to the traditions. IIRC, common priests did demonize the gods in order to compete with the beliefs and practices that people had in secret.