User talk:Ermenrich/sandbox

I think so too.

Lytir is a similar case.--Berig (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I've changed the IE section to a cosmology section, since I think this allows for a more integrated discussion. Perhaps shamanism ought to be moved to the section on locations, personnel and practices?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea!--Berig (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steuer has a section in which he discusses archaeological finds that document the importance of bears and wolves. I wonder where we could discuss that?--Ermenrich (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I very nearly added something about this today - Hedeager also has a whole section on animals. Still not sure how to handle it - maybe it's a low priority compared to everything else.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think wolves, boars and bears, and perhaps horses should be relevant. As for wolves, boars and bears we have important elements in the warrior culture, and that were even used as personal names. Horses were related to kingship, and were part of religious rituals (there are even locations named after ritual horse races).--Berig (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take issue with the rewording rewording, Berig but just to clarify: to me "personal experience" means "first-hand experience", which means actually going somewhere, as you've reworded it. I think only the most polemical scholar would suggest that Tacitus just made it all up.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. I misunderstood what you meant.--Berig (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, great work so far!--Berig (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your help is much appreciated!--Ermenrich (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Berig, Andrén in that chapter seems to be discussing the importance of Gamla Uppsala as a site generally rather than the specifics of the temple. There seems to be more information on the archaeology of the temple itself we could add from the chapter "Ritual Space" by Torun Zachrisson and Anders Andrén, especially pages 703-706 - if you don't mind, I'd like to replace what you've added with something from that instead. (Not right away though - my monograph calls).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! You're right.--Berig (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I finished going through my chapter so I stopped by here again before I go to the gym. I hope the information of Uppsala looks better now! That article is a goldmine, there's some info on divine images that can be added too.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more on Uppsala. Considering the notoriety of the location, it might deserve a few lines more.--Berig (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Germanic divine twins count as major or minor gods?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very good question! I suggest "minor" only because so little is known about them.--Berig (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the sun will go into "Minor female deities" for the same reason.

By the way, when we were discussing pantheon change, PCRN seems to support it for the divine twins and sun at least, though maybe not as extreme as the Simek phrasing we removed. I'll have to look at Simek's Matronae chapter and see if he's still making a similar claim there.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I will try to help out more tomorrow, Central European time.--Berig (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this and quickly scanned a few sections. There are sections here with major issues that need revision before they go live.

1. Statements like "Of the names of Germanic gods attested during the Roman period, only Nerthus is possibly etymologically related to a later Norse god; many names attested in the Nordic sources are similarly without any non-Nordic equivalents" followed by a variety of non-consensus statements of skepticism are highly dubious. RegardingNerthus specifically : "Most scholars accept that the name Njǫrðr, the wealthy hostage sent to the Æsir and the father of Freyr and Freyja, is identical to that of a goddess Nerthus 'or Mother Earth' described by Tacitus in Germania ch. 40." (Lindow 2020: 33); "…since Jacob Grimm, the form Nerthum has been preferred due to its relation to the Old Norse name Njǫrðr" (Janson 2018: 10-11); "Nerthus has long been seen as the etymon of Njǫrðr." (North 1997: 20); "Since the name Nerthus corresponds phonetically to that of Njǫrðr scholars have accepted her as his female counterpart." (Motz 1992: 3); "Nerthus cannot be other than Njörd ..." (Turville-Petre 1964: 172); "strange has been the history of this goddess Nerthus in modern times. Sixteenth century scholars found irresistible the temptation to emend the name of 'Mother Earth' into Herthum, which nineteenth century scholars further improved into Hertham, Ertham. For many years this false goddess drove out the rightful deity from the fortieth chapter of the Germania" (Chambers 2001 [1912]: 70) — one could list many hundreds more similar statements, and they're a typical preamble to the few challenges to it that have been presented to date. Nerthus is—and has long been—widely accepted as the obvious precursor to the Old Norse form. Largely because it's so straightforward—this is a very clear etymology—very few have objected to it since the development of historical linguistics as a science. The rediscovery of the Codex Aesinas after Grimm's death hammered another the nail in the coffin for extra-philological hopes of the reading Hertha. And then there's the matter of wagon processions strongly associated with Njǫrðr and his son Freyr in Old Norse texts. All of this has seen a tremendous amount of discussion over the years. But you'd never know that from this article.
2. Contrary to the aforementioned quote, Germania features the form *Ingwaz (in Ingaevones), which appears not only in Old English texts but also later as a form of the same deity's son (Yngvi). There's also *đīsō (via
   Negau B
   , the earliest known Germanic inscription ("The last part, teiva, is particularly interesting from the point of view of the history of religions because it may designate the Old Norse týr, ‘god’, or the god Týr. The first part, which should probably be read harigasti, a name meaning ‘guest of the army’ (in the dative), could then be read as an appellative having the following meaning: ‘for Týr (or the god), guest of the army’ or as a personal name: ‘from Harigast for Týr (or for the god)’. This cannot be decided, but the important thing seems to be that the first evidence of any Germanic language is linked to religion." — Schjødt, PCRN 2020: 250). Again, readers would never know this from the current article.
3. A glance also reveals what reads like confusion around the term folklore. Statements like "Earlier scholars, beginning with Jacob Grimm, believed that folklore was of ancient origin and had changed little, which allowed the use of folklore and fairy tales as sources of Germanic religion" read as garbled and confused. Folklore isn't some kind of post-Christianization development. It's attested throughout human history. Myth is also a genre of folklore: Whenever we're talking about myth, we're talking about folklore. The relevant corpus involves a variety of folklore genres, like legend, folktale, and myth. In turn, highly un-nuanced statements like "Today, scholars are cautious in their use of folkloric material", following statements where folklore reads as if it is defined as simply material from the post-conversion period, also seem to imply a lack of awareness of recent works like Folklore and Old Norse mythology (2021, FF Communications 323). And, of course, words like "Today" age like milk on Wikipedia. Edit: The addition of "modern" resolved this.

While our current Germanic mythology article is poor primarily because it's so bare, and this will no doubt develop into an improvement, before this goes live, it needs a thorough review. Much of this article reads as if it is highly skeptical of historical linguistics and seems to shun the comparative method. It also very strongly focuses on Simek, both in his pre-Lotte Motz memorial phase and in his post-Lotte Motz memorial phase. This is far out of step with modern academic consensus and harks back to pre-Grimm's Law notions, often nearly reading like something from hundreds of years ago. It also seems to go to pains to highlight contrary opinions over consensus while also arbitrarily going with this or that reading here and there (eg. "They seem to have originally personified various natural phenomena and were enemies of humans and gods"—in fact, how many times are Simek's takes given prominence over others here?). :bloodofox: (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that we have not always gotten along Bloodofox, so I hope we can keep this discussion on topic. I realize you know a lot about this topic, and I value your contributions to it. Now let me respond briefly to your points:

1. I am trying to rely on statements of
   WP:RS/AC
   , which take precedence over listings of scholars saying the same thing. Now it is perhaps true that in some cases "contrary-opinions" have been overly emphasized, and I am trying to trim some of those out. But it is important not to convey the notion of widespread consensus when there isn't any. The fact that there has been a lot of discussion doesn't mean it's all accepted fact. Things like wagon processions etc. are all mentioned elsewhere.
2. Nerthus is the only god whose name can be traced back in Tacitus - the other examples are words meaning a type of god in later texts or an extrapolation for the Inguaeones (Tacitus doesn't say they descend from a god named Ingwaz - the draft does mention this connection however, as well as the Negau helmet, elsewhere). At any rate, the statement is sourced and if it's meaning is unclear I can tweak the text. edit I believe I have addressed this point now.
3. Again, this is sourced text, to Gunnell and Zernack. The reference is to contemporary folklore as a source on ancient Germanic religion (or at least contemporary as of whenever the authors were collecting it). I can tweak and make this clear. edit: Having looked through the document, I think this should already be clear. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the draft explicitly says that use of folklore has experienced a revival since the 1990s in Nordic scholarship.^[1] Today, scholars are cautious in their use of folkloric material, keeping in mind that most was collected long after the conversion and the advent of writing.^[2] Areas where continuity can be noted include agrarian rites and magical ideas,^[1] as well as the kernels of some folktales.^[3]
4. I do not think I overly emphasize Simek, as I'm relying on a wide variety of scholars, including those in the PCRN volume you yourself recommended, as well as the Reallexikon and other authors. You'll see names like Heinrich Beck, Bernhard Maier, and many others cited multiple times, as well as Schjødt, Lindow, Andrén, and Steuer for archaeology. Simek is just a convenient source and one of the few good ones in English for some things. I'm not sure I understand your objection on the giants, and I don't see how you can claim that, if I'm relying on Simek, a modern scholar, the draft can sound like something written "hundreds of years ago." These strike me as two contradictory statements.

The section I'm currently working on is the pantheon, so don't expect it to necessarily appear complete or that it will look the way it does in the end now. I hope I can incorporate your suggestions in such a way that they improve the draft overall.--14:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me out, Ermenrich. I'll follow up with more comments soon—my time at the moment is too limited for me to sit down and provide the comments the amount of time you've put into this deserves—but some quick followups:

1. Simek's Dictionary of Northern Mythology (German and English editions): Both the German and English editions (and especially the English edition, which is the most recent edition) are important resources, but they have some issues that need to be kept in mind. First, most of the material in these editions stem from the late 1970s and have not been modified since. Quite alot of this material is just as valid and useful as when it is written—many of these topics are rarely discussed—and it continues to be frequently cited, but this is important to keep in mind. Second, Simek's commentary can be problematic. For example, sometimes Simek will sometimes say one thing in one entry and then the exact opposite in another entry. He also has a habit of presenting his opinions as fact. Compare some of his entries to John Lindow's Norse Mythology: A Guide to Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs or, to a lesser extent, Andy Orchard's Dictionary of Norse Myth and Legend. Lindow's handbook is a great resource for this article. His similarly-named 2020 Old Norse Mythology is also a great source for this article. All these dictionaries are very useful for general commentary.
2. Philology: As you know, we have an extremely well-sourced article on Proto-Germanic folklore. This is a goldmine for this article. My comments about the article appearing to me as if it were something from hundreds of years ago (prior to the discovery of the First Germanic Sound Shift) is feedback on the article's present lack of engagement with linguistic reconstruction. Engagement with historical linguistics, comparative material, and reconstructions are all very typical of scholarship in this area in the post-Grimm era. Sorry—I certainly could have been clearer about that.
3. Early Germanic deity names and continuum: The article contains some discussion about early Germanic deity names and the connections between the early Germanic and the Old Norse bodies. We should be more explicit with our audience about what these corpuses look like. The great majority of Roman era items are either examples of interpretatio or the names of Germanic Matres and Matronae. In fact, we should really have a whole section on the matronae—there's a lot of discussion about them and the dísir and events like the Old English Mōdraniht.

It looks like you're still doing heavy work here and so I'll follow up with more feedback and suggestions in the near future. Thanks for putting the work in on this—I know it's a lot. I'm typing this on mobile, so please pardon any typos. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Bloodofox, I'll try to address them over some time, either by edits or responding here. Just on the matronae: they're currently in the pantheon section under "Roman era#Other female goddesses". I'd certainly consider having them get their own section given their importance. I haven't gotten around to addressing the disir, valkyries or norns yet.

I've started adding a bit from D. H. Green's chapter on religion from Language and History. I think it's important to look at what scholars on religion specifically are saying rather than simply adding etymologically adduced forms, however. It's one think to say that the reconstructed form of a god's name is something, it's another to say he/she was worshiped throughout the Germanic speaking world or can be attested very early. I hope you understand what I mean. We can certainly address some of the linguistic reconstruction though.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Berig, do you have access to a print copy of Andrén’s book? I only have a kindle version that doesn’t have page numbers, which is why I haven’t made more use of it. I was going to correct the numbers I had already given but then the war started and I’ve of course had to return the hard copy I’d interlibrary loaned a long time ago. Would you be able to correct the other references to it?—Ermenrich (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermenrich:, sure! I will do it.--Berig (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following text:

Female elves associated with water are known as meriminni and merwîp in medieval Germany; in the heroic Nibelungenlied (c. 1200), they have the ability to prophesy the future.^[4]

It seems to refer to Nixies as Elves since Elf can be used in a wider sense in English. IMHO, we need to stick to what the medieval Germans would have called alb.--Berig (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Berig, the cited article in the Reallexikon said this:

Urspr. wohlmeinende Charakterzüge besaßen dagegen die álfar (ahd. alb, ags. ælf, anord. álfr; lat. albus ,weiß`; ie. *albh- ,glänzen, weiß sein`; Alben; 5, 45 f.), die in den Skáldskaparmál (Edda, Jüngere) gemeinsam mit den ásynjur (Asen) beim Bankett von Ráns Gatten Ægir/Hlér(anord. ,Meerriese` bzw. ,Meer`; 7, 47) erscheinen. Zu Jól (Jul) wurde ihnen als genii loci (landvættir; Vættir), z. B. von Quellen oder Wasserfällen, geopfert (álfablót; 5, 46). Eine allg. Bezeichnung elbischer Wesen enthält das ahd. Kompositum merimanni (,Meereswesen`) bzw. merimenni (meriminni*, merimin* ,Meerjungfrau`)und meriminna (,Meerweib`), das im 8. Jh. mit lat. sirena und scylla glossiert wird und sich in mhd. Qu. u. a. als (wildeʒ) merwîp, merfrouwe, merfei(n)e, waʒʒerholde, wîse wazzerfeine, muome, mûme wieder findet (1, I, 360 f.; 14, 409). Im Nibelungenlied prophezeit das merwîp Sigelint Hagen den Untergang der Burgunden ( Burgunden § 3) (1, I, 360; 8, 318). Die urspr. nicht notwendigerweise als Wasserfrau gedachte Gestalt der Melusine,deren Sage zuerst im 12. Jh. belegt ist, wird als bonne dame und Ahnfrau der Lusignan verehrt (3, 83 f.). Der isl. marmennill, von dem u. a. die Landnámabók (II, 5) berichtet, ist ein schweigsamer, männlicher Wassergeist in Zwergengestalt, der die Gabe der Weissagung (Wahrsagen und Weissagen; Mantik) besitzt, weshalb ihn die Menschen aus dem Meer fischen und in ihre Gewalt bringen wollen (1, I, 360; 8, 318).

So it seems that the article is says that these particular water spirits were elves - the Nixies on the other hand are dangerous spirits who try to drown people. I don't have any strong feelings on whether to include it or not, the Nibelungenlied is fairly late evidence after all.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the source calls them elbischer Wesen, which as far as I understand means that they were "elf-ish beings". This makes their association to Elves less strong, IMHO. Also, he includes, the vettir among the Elves. OTOH, you are right when you say that Nixies are dangerous, and I can't recall *any* legend in which they are benevolent, but the original Elves were also dangerous creatures. Honestly, these nature spirits all blend into each other, and especially when you compare the concepts between modern Germanic languages, so I would stick to an etymological approach. I am no stranger to writing about fuzzy concepts but these supernatural races are really hard to handle otherwise.--Berig (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about fuzzy topics, do you have any suggestions for I should deal with the disir, valkyries, and norns?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You asked Berig, not me, but I once planned to redo the dísir article ... Lotte Motz's "Sister in the Cave; the stature and the function of the female figures of the Eddas", Arkiv 95 (1980) 168–82 is a valuable contribution. (But last time I looked we weren't even referencing Þiðrandaþáttr, which I wrote up as a preparatory step). I think you're running into the old problem of how far to accommodate Norse material within a survey of the entirety of Germanic, exacerbated by the differences displayed by the Anglo-Saxon sources, not all of which can be attributed to Christian filtration, and the variation in usage of "Germanic" that came up in the Germanic peoples article. I know Bloodofox worked on the Elves article, trying to make clear the differences; and so far as I recall, valkyries are only mentioned in A-S in the Chronicle entry that couples wiccan ond wælcyrgan, as I recall as night-riders. Nothing for dísir or norns outside Norse sources, IIRC, but my focus has been away from the female figures for a few years now, so I may be misremembering. However, if you're taking the approach that this article should be on the precursor shared beliefs insofar as they are illuminated by material from all ancient and medieval Germanic traditions, as you seem to be, then of course dísir, norns, and giants are among the places where it's clearest that Snorri has made things fit Christianity. The Old Norse religion article has been rewritten by someone else recently; I am deliberately not looking at it. But there are more small articles than may be apparent; I recall working on Sacred trees and groves in Germanic paganism and mythology, and I started Anthropomorphic wooden cult figurines of Central and Northern Europe. Not entirely incidentally, I use the word "religion" differently from Berig and prefer to call all forms of paganism religions; there are now students of paganism within the field of religious studies (and they study the modern movements, many of whose practitioners reject the term "religion"!), and in my view it is salutary to close the circle and not leave folk and indigenous religions to the folklorists and the anthropologists and allow members of institutionalized religions to maintain the expectation that all religions have holy books, professional clergy, and dedicated buildings. Historians are all over the place on this :-) But from a purely practical point of view, Wikipedia may have to live with this and the Norse article not matching, because people do have a variety of definitions of "religion". So anyway, I'll shut up now! Yngvadottir (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermenrich:, as for Dísir, Valkyries and Norns, I would start out with idisi/dísir, because dís seems to be the over-arching term meaning "lady" and it is attested from both north and west Germanic. Dís simply referred to powerful females including human women and goddesses. Then I would treat Valkyrie and Norns as subordinate terms, because they were called dísir as well in North Germanic.--Berig (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I totally forgot the idisi; good thing I'm not the one rewriting this :-)Yngvadottir (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yngvadottir! Please feel free to chime in (or edit) any time you see fit!

I think maybe I can mention the disir in the context of the Matronae and then move mentions of Eostre and some other female deities back to that section as well. You're right - no attestations of Norns outside of Old Norse, and the OE attestation of valkyrie is apparently somewhat problematic (is it a loanword? from AN to OE or the other way around? etc. This is at least what the Reallexikon article says, and it's from near 2010). Perhaps I can mention the Norns briefly in the context of fate...--Ermenrich (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - anyone know if there's a standard scholarly term equivalent to German "kultische Umfahrt"? "Cultic circumambulation"? I'm going to rename the "Wagon process" section and add some more info.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "cultic procession".--Berig (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like the best solution. It's also mostly comprehensible to a layman, except the "cultic" part (I'm teaching a general education class for freshmen and we covered Roman religion and "mystery cults" the other day and based on their reading quizzes they definitely didn't understand what "cult" means in religious and historical studies, lol).--Ermenrich (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Ritual procession", perhaps, if "cultic" is a hard word for the layman. It seems to be much more common, actually.--Berig (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While producing this article, I think we should lean toward consensus statements rather than specific threads of inquiry. More thorough discussion and surveys are best served by more granular and detailed discussion in dedicated articles. A good example of this is Simek's widely rejected "Vanir obituary" proposal (Vanir#Rudolf_Simek's_"Vanir_Obituary"). Ultimately, it's just one of very many proposals about the Vanir produced by scholars that has seen significant discussion over the last few hundred years and one that has found very few supporters (I can only think of one). I suggest that we avoid these side discussions where possible, particularly when they have not met with notable acceptance, and try to stick to general consensus statements wherever possible on this article. Finding consensus statements may be difficult for some of these topics but consensus should become clear when comparing multiple sources (especially tertiary sources). :bloodofox: (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you, if for no other reason than this draft is fast approaching 10,000 words. Unfortunately, sometimes it seems like multiple sources contradict each other on this topic, sometimes within the same edited volume (different authors in the PCRN volumes say different things, even with the same editor, for instance), so we'll have to be careful.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I've been looking through sources to try and improve what little can be said about the connection of Ingwaz and Freyr, and I've found various contradictory statements. While almost everyone agrees that "Yngvi-Freyr" means "Lord of the Inguaeones" rather than "Ingwaz-Freyr", they differ on whether Ingwaz/Ing was a god or a hero (and thus, one would assume, his identity with Freyr):

• Simek, 1993, speaks of Ingwaz as definitely having been a god
• Bernhard Maier, 2000 in the Reallexikon, says Der im ae. Runengedicht erwähnte Wagen ist verschiedentlich mit jenem Wagen in Verbindung gebracht worden, den Tacitus im Zusammenhang mit dem Nerthuskult (Nerthus und Nerthuskult) erwähnt (so z. B. 7, II, 167), doch bleibt dies wegen des unsicheren Kontextes der ae. Verse spekulativ. Beachtung verdient in jedem Fall, daß Ing als Sohn des Gottes Mannus zwar als mythischer Ahnherr, nicht aber als Gott gegolten haben wird, wie er denn auch im oben angeführten Runenlied lediglich als ,Held` (ae.hæle) bezeichnet wird. So a hero and not a god.
• Olof Sundqvist, 2020 in Pre-Christian Religions of the North, not only says that Ingwaz was a god, but that Classical sources written in Latin indicate that Freyr, under the name *Ingwaz, was worshipped as early as the first century ce by the federation of tribes called Ingvaeones, who lived next to the ocean in the northern part of Germania, perhaps in Denmark.

I am uncertain how to untangle this particular knot.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain that too much should be made of whether he was man or god. In Germanic culture, men could be raised to gods after their death, and consequently gods could be assumed to have been men.--Berig (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the Old English rune poem describes Ing as a hæle, this does not necessarily translate to 'hero'. It can also mean 'warrior' or even just 'brave man, notable man, man'. Maier leaves that out in the quote above.

Anyway, besides the explicit identification of the two through North Germanic forms (like Yngvi-Freyr), the corpus surrounding Freyr and the few mentions we get of Ing paint them as quite similar. They share motifs like a particular association with wagons (Ing: the Old English rune poem, you have the Freyr wagon procession references) and as founding figures (Ing: The Old English rune poem and extrapolated from Tacitus's Germania vs. Freyr: founder of royal lineages in Sweden as early as Íslendingabók and Saxo). Freyr's particular association with Sweden also recalls the Old English rune poem's description of Ing as arriving 'first with the East Danes', which seems to indicate some idea of a Swedish origin.

As you know, Germanic deities occur credited as founding dynasties, houses, and tribes: The deity-as-royal-or-tribal-founding-figure situation is comparable to the record around Odin, where he and Frigg are deities and tribal/dynastic founding figure as early as the Lombardic founding myth.

The cognate Old English form frea ingwine occurs in Beowulf (1319a) where it is used in the voice of the poet to describe the lord of the hall, Heorot, the ruler Hrothgar, in Denmark. The Old Norse and Old English forms have resulted in the reconstructed Proto-Germanic form *Ingwina-frawjaz ('lord of the Ing-friends'). (If I recall correctly the Old English form only occurs in the sole surviving Beowulf manuscript.) Besides the cognate deity and ruler names, the 'lord of the Ing-friends's' hall, Heorot, means 'hart, stag', and Freyr fights with a particular antler weapon in the Prose Edda.

These points may help you to discover more detailed discussion. I'll see how Lindow and Orchard describe the situation when I am back at my library. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone able to find/get a picture of oracle lots. The Reallexikon (2002) mentions these sites specifically: Beelen, Germany, Borken-West, Germany; Castrop-Rauxel, Zeche Erin, Germany; Charleville-Mezières, Ardennes, France; Illerup Ådal, Denmark; Liebenau, Lower Saxony, Germany; Nørre Lyngby, Denmark. It actually has a picture of the lots from the last site.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and written about the one from Zeche Erin - we'll see if I get a positive response.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got 'em!--Ermenrich (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I wasn't entirely sure about was how to add the permission on Wikimedia commons since it was conveyed by email. If anyone has any experience with that, please let me know.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we mention the appearance of the Eddic dís skjöldunga and Beowulf's ides scyldinga. Two identical phrases that support the identity of dís and idis? As it is now it looks like a drive-by shooting down of the connection. Honestly, if we find anything that is not contested in academia, we are lucky.--Berig (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the word is being used to mean lady - this example doesn’t feature in the secondary lit I’ve been using on the topic - in fact Lindow’s chapter in PCRN does even mention the Merseburg charms that I can recall, though maybe I’m wrong - and I believe that an etymological connection between itis and dis is also not widely held. If the Reallexikon mentions doubts, I think we would be remiss not to mention them here.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Mainstream secondary literature is what we have to abide by. BTW, ides and dis don't need to have had any etymological connection to be connected. In folk etymology, which is a factor in language evolution, words and names with different etymologies are mixed up, made equivalents and even merged. It is enough that they look similar and have similar meaning.--Berig (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any decent specialist discussion of the norns, dísir, and valkyries will discuss all of these entities together—they are indeed extensions of the same cluster of motifs, so much so that we have figures described as both valkyries and norns in the Old Norse body. There's been a tremendous amount written about this.

Additionally, I don't think there's any serious doubt about an etymological connection between the West Germanic and North Germanic forms among most scholars—it's obvious enough, and the example Berig provides is a classic one. The etymological problem is, as Orel puts it, "unclear prefixal formations in WGmc", and he reconstructs Proto-Germanic *đīsō without further comment (2003: 72). Comments like McKinnel's "Old High German idis, Old English ides and Old Norse dís are probably related, although the Old English noun has lost most of its supernatural connotations" (and also: "AEW 77 disputes the derivation of dís from idis and regards dísir as fertility goddesses (cf. Sanskrit dhisana ‘female deity’). Dís- also appears as a name-element in other Germanic languages (Frankish Agedisus, Disibod, Alemannic Disi, Langobardic Tiso), but even if dís is older than idis, the words are probably related.", both quotes from McKinnell 2005: 199-200) are very common to encounter and appear to form consensus.

I'd recommend digging into more specialist literature covering these figures, like material from Karen Bek-Pedersen or Hilda Davidson. (But watch out for Great Goddess stuff, which was for a long while rampant in this and related corners, like Motz, Gimbutas, Näsström, and, to a lesser extent, Davidson) I've been meaning to rewrite and expand our norn and dís articles going into depth about all this. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would trust Guus Kroonen more than Vladimir Orel - I can't speak for his work on Indo-European, but Orel's Afro-Asiatic stuff has been heavily criticized for making improbable connections. Kroonen is actually a specialist in IE linguistics and notes: The link with ON dís [...], on the other hand [this is his second etymology for itis], is not improbably in view of the parallelism of ON dís Skjöldunga and OE ides Scildinga, but poses crucial formal difficulties.

Could you give the full citation for McKinnell so I can check that out? If we're trying to find consensus statements, I would generally be more trustful of the Reallexikon as a compendium meant to summarize the state of the field than of individual scholar's publications, unless they themselves contain statements that satisfy AC.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about his work exterior to Germanic, but Orel is pretty widely cited. (@Alcaios: may also have some relevant items on hand.) Of course, the more the merrier when it comes to sources, so it'd be best to use Orel alongside Kroonen and others (like De Vries). I think the best thing to do here is just to briefly mention it and then go into as much detail as possible on the dís article itself. The McKinnell book in question is Meeting the Other in Norse Myth and Legend (2005, D.S. Brewer). It contains a lot of useful discussion relevant to this and related articles. It's available for preview on Google Books (sometimes?) and you can probably get a PDF via your university library. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to go back through the sources. This is what I have seen so far:

Simek, 1993: These Idisi are obviously a kind of valkyrie [...] A link to the North Germanic dísir would be a reasonable assumption, but it is not undisputed.

Hans-Peter Naumann, 1984, Reallexikon: Hingegen wird eine Beziehung zw. nordgerm. dís und ae.ides ‚vornehme Frau‘, as.idis, ahd. itis ,Frau‘ heute aus etym. Erwägungen zumeist abgelehnt (15; 12); doch deuten gleichlautende Ausdrücke der Dichtersprache wie anord.dίs scioldunga ‚Schildungenfrau‘ und ae.ides Scyldinga (Beow.) zumindest auf eine poetische Rezeption im N hin. Die Gleichstellung von dίsir mit den heerfesselnden idisi des ersten Merseburger Zauberspruchs, die sich hauptsächlich auf die Konjektur des bei Tac. ann. 2,16 überlieferten ON der Weserschlacht 16 n.Chr.Idistaviso in Idisiaviso ‚nympharum pratum, Frauenwiese‘ durch J. Grimm (Dt. Myth. I, 332) stützt, ist stark — Page 495 — Column 989 umstritten und erlaubt keine religionsgeschichtl. Rückschlüsse (14 § 230).

Hermann Reichert, 1995, the article "Frau" in Reallexikon: Dísir (Disen): das Verhältnis von dísir zu fylgiur, hamingia, Matronen und idisi behandelt E. O. G. Turville-Petre (69, 221 ff.). Er bezweifelt die Identität der dísir mit den idisi, bejaht aber die Identität der dísir mit den Matronae. Die dísir erhielten einen Kult (dísablót) und spielten eine wichtige Rolle im Leben der Gemeinschaft.

Michael Lundgreen, 2001, Reallexikon: Eine Hauptschwierigkeit sind die hier genannten „Idisi“, die sonst nirgends belegt sind. J. Grimm (Dt. Myth. I, 332 f.) - und hierin sind ihm viele gefolgt, z. B. Andreas Heusler (6, 59) und Ehrismann (4, 102) - sah in ihnen eine Art Gegenstück zu den anord.Walküren und Disen, die in den Kampf eingreifen oder als Helferinnen und Schützerinnen der Kämpfenden auftreten. [...] Man muß wohl konstatieren, daß keine der ,Erklärungen` voll befriedigt und der 1. Merseburger Zauberspruch in seinem Umriß selbst unbestimmt bleibt.

John Lindow, Norse Mythology: A Guide 2001: These women would seem to be cognate with the dísir of Scandinavian mythology.

Ute Zimmermann, 2007, in Reallexikon, on valkyries: Vergleichbare Lähmungserscheinungen sind auch in anderen Qu. überliefert und wurden mit dem Wirken der idisi im Ersten Merseburger Zauberspruch (Merseburger Zaubersprüche) verglichen, denen die Fähigkeit zugeschrieben wird, Gefangene zu fesseln, Heere zu hemmen und die Fesseln wieder zu lösen (vgl. 14, 1-85; 18, 26-47). Wenn auch die W. nicht mit den idisi gleichgesetzt werden können, wie dies in der ält.Forsch. oft geschehen ist, zeigen sich hier doch verwandte Vorstellungen.

Matthias Eggeler, 2011, inWalküren, Bodbs, Sirenen, on valkyries: Auch stellt – gänzlich unabhängig von der Frage der möglichen Anwendung des Zauberspruchs – die historiola des Zaubers die mythische Vorlage für die Wirksamkeit des Zaubers als eine Kriegssituation dar: Die Idisi haben einst in einer Auseinandersetzung zwischen Heeren ihre Fähigkeit gezeigt, Fesseln anzulegen und zu lösen, und ebenso verspricht sich der Benutzer des Zaubers, daß sie wiederum Fesseln lösen. Ausgangspunkt des Zaubers ist also in jedem Fall die Macht der Idisi über Kriegsfesseln. Diese Vorstellung erinnert an den altnordischen herfjǫturr und die Walküre Herfjǫtur. [373] Und wie die Walküren zumeist in Gruppen auftreten, erscheinen auch die Idisi im Plural. Neben dem Phänomen der „Heeresfessel“ mag ferner auch die Bezeichnung Idisi eine Verbindung zu den Walküren herstellen, da die Walküren auch mit dem allgemeineren Begriff dísir bezeichnet werden können; aber was genau die sprachliche Beziehung zwischen den Idisi und den dísir ist, und sogar ob eine solche überhaupt besteht, ist unklar.[374] Daher läßt sich hier nur festhalten, daß sowohl im Norden als auch im südgermanischen Bereich die Vorstellung eines Kollektivs weiblicher Gestalten belegt ist, die in der Lage waren, Kämpfer auf übernatürliche Weise zu „fesseln“,[375] wobei auch im Süden ein magisches Binden im Sinne des nordischen herfjǫturr gemeint gewesen sein könnte.[376]

Theo Vennemann, in Hvanndalir – Beiträge zur europäischen Altertumskunde und mediävistischen on the matronae: Im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert gab es viele Forscher, die die mit Beinamen versehenen Matronen auf den Weihaltären des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts (über 800 vollständig oder bruchstückhaft erhaltene Denkmäler mit ca. 80 verschiedenen Matronennamen) im Raum Köln-Bonn-Aachen, der südlichen Germania inferior, für germanische Göttinnen hielten. Sie setzten sie mit — Page 498den nordischen dīsir und den deutschen idisi gleich. No mention of this later, he only brings it up in a historical context.

Simek, 2020, in PCRN: The First Merseburg Charm (Germany, ninth century) mentions idisi as capable of helping prisoners escape by magic, while several Swedish and Norwegian placenames suggest a belief in dísir in heathen Scandinavia and possibly also a sacrifice (dísablót) dedicated to them, although the source value of that instance is debatable (è58). Whether the place Idisiaviso (or Idistaviso, ‘plain of the idisi’) already mentioned by Tacitus (Annals 2.16) may be connected with them is even more speculative. However, the wide currency of the term in Old English, Old High German, and Old Norse and the references to their veneration make it likely that they were thought of as lower divinities and that the above-mentioned depictions of stately women, sometimes bearing a horn, on brooches, fibulae, and pendants should most probably be interpreted as dísir. In the conclusion: [The matronae] have parallels both in the Celtic and Roman worlds and may, with some likelihood, be associated with the Old High German idisi and the Viking Age Scandinavian dísir.

I realize this is a bit of a wall of text (in German too!). Lindow does say it in his guide meant for a more general public, but does not mention the idisi at all in his article on the disir. Suffice it to say that many scholars suspect a connection, but no one seems quite certain about it. The more interesting connection may be to the valkyries actually. The strongest statement may be by Simek in 2020 actually.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This touches on something that is underlying it all. Women were spinners and weavers in pre-industrial society. Nowadays, people have no grasp of how much time most rural women spent in the time consuming activity of making clothes. It is no coincidence that the Fates all over Europe were conceived as spinning the threads of fate, nor is it a coincidence that supernatural women are said to be binding warriors during battle. Nowadays, Scandinavian scholars believe that Viking age women did not wait passively at home while their men were out fighting. It is believed that they imagined that they magically helped their men while weaving and spinning. This is a probably a new topic with huge repercussions in how we understand the meanings of Valkyries, idisi and dísir. I am not suggesting that this be included. I am just saying that there are deep layers of iron age magical thinking involved here, and it makes much more sense to assume that there were both physical and non-physical female powers involved in the minds of the Germanic warriors, which really dissolves the differences between Valkyries-disir and idisi. They were all basically the same thing: "ladies (supernatural or otherwise) meddling in battle".--Berig (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you - unfortunately, it seems that most scholars nowadays insist that the division of these different types of magical women be maintained. I was actually considering adding a section on magic, but it looks like we don't have much of a sense of this in a pan-Germanic sense (unlike say divination). PCRN only talks about Norse examples and the south Germanic examples are all heavily influenced by Christianity.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan de Vries, Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch: Früher unrichtig zu ae. ides 'vornehme frau', as. idis, ahd. itis 'frau' (vgl. lat. germ. *Idisiaviso statt überlief. Idistaviso) gestellt (dagegen Uhlenbeck ·PBB 33, 1908, 184). Das dís auch urgerm. bekannt war, beweisen PN. wie fränk. Agedisus, Disibod, alam. Disi, langob. Tiso. Im skand. recht häufig: Aldís, Alfdís, Ásdís, Freydís, Herdís, Hjalmdís, Hjǫrdís, Jódís, Þórdís und Koseform Dísa. Alcaios (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Wittemoor wooden figures
• 
  Braak bog wooden figures
• 
  Possendorf wooden figure
• 
  DR BR42 bracteate
• 
  Negua B inscription

Does anyone have any ideas for what image should be at the top of this page? I prefer archaeological or primary objects rather than the sorts of 19th-century romantic paintings or modern book illustrations that float around a lot of articles on this topic, but if there's an especially good one it might be worth considering.

Also: If there's an image already on the page you think should be promoted to the top (especially from the archaeological section) I might be able to replace it with another archaeological image in the body.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'd vote for a picture of bracteate, or a stick god.--Berig (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are a few other images of those stick gods that could be used - and of course bracteates or gullgubbers. Ideally I think something sort of earlier would be good.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do either of these look? The second one is a bit early (probably 400 BCE), the first is from around around 1 CE.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a clear image of a b-type bracteate would be most suitable. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another "Pfahlgott": This one is better lit. From Possendorf near Weimar, first century BCE.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second one, "braak bog figures", is the best one among the stick men. Otherwise, I support Bloodofox' idea, and this one appears to invoke a god.--Berig (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We might also consider the

Negau B inscription, as it is not only the earliest known Germanic inscription but also directly references Germanic religion. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm leaning bracteate - it's bright and shiny and looks good as a top image. We should definitely include the Negau helmet somewhere - I have an idea where it would fit. Will move things around accordingly.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed a statement that read "Several gods mentioned in the Second Merseburg Charm are only known from this reference" attributed to Simek. The Merseburg Charm is heavily focused on the number six and is generally accepted as referring to six deities (with some proposing seven). These are Odin (Wodan), Sól (Sunna), Fulla (Volla), Baldr (Balder), and Frigg (Frija). The sole deity in the charm who is otherwise unattested anywhere is Sinthgunt, and there's been much discussion about who this name may refer to, particularly since it alliterative with Sunna.

I recommend revisiting what Simek says here—I'll be back to my library soon and can take a look. This charm is particularly important in Germanic religion because not only because it provides insight into continental Germanic theonyms (and even a little bit of myth) but also because what it provides is so close to the Old Norse material. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He says: Sinthgunt, Sunna and Volla are only known from this brief reference, and the names Phol and Baldr have caused dispute since it is unclear whether these are in fact gods' names or whether, for example, Baldr might simply be mean (sic!) 'lord' and as such refer back to the god Wodan in the first line. Sunna isn't attested as a goddess elsewhere (Sol is a male being in Norse mythology but not an object of worship - the article "Sun and Moon" in PCRN mentions this). I believe Volla is usually associated with Fulla and obviously Balder with... Baldr (I think that part of his argument is outdated - the Reallexikon article on the Merseburg Charms I believe refers to Balder being Baldr as the most logical assumption).

It may be that it's less helpful to include Simek's statement than to leave it out. It looks like it touches on fairly deep debates about the Merseburg Charms that we can't get into in this article.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Simek is referring to (some of) the continental forms, which are only attested here, but look at his entries on this individual deities for more info. He discusses that they're cognate forms. Like Sunna, Sól is in fact female—where in PCRN does it say she somewhere appears as male?—and attested as a goddess in an ásynjur 'goddess' list in Skáldskaparmál (check out our in-depth article on her). Fulla and Volla are explicitly cognate and her appearance as an alliterative pair with Frija implies an association we similarly see in the Old Norse corpus. The thing with Phol and Balder has indeed been discussed quite a lot, with many scholars indicating straightforward identification for alliterative and potentially cultic purposes, and some arguing that they should be seen as separate figures and that Balder is just some kind of title or something. Most of the complications around the charm are focused on Phol and Balder. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misremembered this passage by Andrén: In later textual sources, the sun is mentioned as the goddess Sunna in the Second Merseburg Charm, whereas in the Icelandic tradition the sun and the moon are regarded as either celestial bodies or as personifications called Sól andMáni (cf. DuBois 2017). Besides, Sól could also be regarded as one of the æsir goddesses. At any rate, as I say, it would probably be better to simply remove the text, as you have done.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! :bloodofox: (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to put together a section on magic - Alexander Rubel discusses it from a pan-Germanic perspective. The Reallexikon has two articles (Magie and Zauber) that touch on it but don't give much a common picture, while PCRN's article is "Nordo-centric" (if I may invent a term). Are there any other good sources that would be more inclusive?

Also: are there any other basic practices/elements of belief that should be in the draft but are not yet?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a lot of recent discussion on one peculiar element we could include: The super strong focus on the number three (and three threes, nine). It's all over the Old Norse record, strongly emphasized in the Nine Herbs Charm, appears in the Merseburg Charm (six), and may go back to Tacitus. Here's some recent discussion about this matter from the North Germanic area. I think Simek also has some entries on this (at least one on "nine").

I'll spend some more time looking over the current article and give this some more thought. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I recently added a sentence about divine triads. More info could be useful.—Ermenrich (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual influences in early Germanic and Celtic paganisms are surveyed in Egeler: Celtic Influences in Germanic Religion; Maier The Celtic and Germanic: West and North; Koch: Celto-Germanic, Later Prehistory and Post-Proto-Indo-European vocabulary in the North and West; etc. Alcaios (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a section on syncretism in general could be added in the definitions section? That could also cover the “interpretatio Christiana” which is currently not mentioned (potentially).—Ermenrich (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shared religious vocabulary between PGermanic and PCeltic is extensive: *Ala-fader/*Olo-(p)atīr, *wōdaz/*wātis, *draugaz/*drougos, *dwas-/*dwosyos, *skōhslaz/*skāhslos, *Ferg(w)unjō/*ferkunyo, *har(u)gaz/*karrikā, *lēk(i)jaz/lēagis, *nemeđaz/*nemetom, *rūnō/*rūna, *saidaz/*soytos, *Þun(a)raz/*Tonaros, etc. The vast majority of those lexical items is absent from other Indo-European languages. They point to intense contacts as far back as the Pre-Germanic/Pre-Celtic period, up until the Roman era. Alcaios (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising. The period in which the Celts were most powerful c. 500 BC - 50 BC coincided with Proto-Germanic, and Proto-Germanic also received many important loan words from Celtic.--Berig (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Tīwaz is not a direct derivation from the PIE sky-god, but likely an epithet meaning 'god' that came to be associated with a specific PGermanic deity whose original name is now lost (see Týr#Etymology).

M. L. West: The Germanic: *Tīwaz (Norse: Týr, etc.) also goes back to *deiwós. But he does not seem to be the old Sky-god, and it is preferable to suppose that he once had another name, which came to be supplanted by the title 'God'.

G. Kroonen: The general meaning of PGm. *tiwa- was simply 'god', cf. ON tívar pl. 'gods' < *tiwoz, but the word was clearly associated with the specific deity Týr-Tīw-Ziu Alcaios (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to post the sources, but this is not what the PCRN article (or, I believe, the Reallexikon) says about the etymology of his name. I'll try to come back later with the precise citations, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology is consensual. PGer. *tīwaz 'deity' (cf. Old Norse týr 'deity') comes from PIE *deywós ('celestial, heavenly one' > 'deity'; cf. Skt devá, OLith. deivas, OLat. deivos, Gaul. dēuos 'deity'). PIE *deywós is a vṛddhi-derivative from *dyēus ('daylight sky'). Kroonen and West contend that the theonym *Tīwaz (ON Týr, OE Tīw) is based on the noun. Alcaios (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are technically correct. This is the beginning of Lindow's article on Tyr in PCRN: The name Týr, Old English Tīw, Old High German Ziu, can be derived from Proto-Germanic *tīwaz, which in turn derives from the Indo-European root that in various forms yields words for day, sky, and god. Direct cognates are Latin deus, Irish dīa, Old Prussian deiwas, and Lithuanian diẽvas, all of which mean ‘god’ (de Vries 1962a: 603). Týr’s name thus is cognate with such divine names as Zeus, Jupiter, Diana, and Dēvona, and it is the only name in Old Norse with such affinities. I don't believe that West's idea that Tyr's name is a later replacement is consensus, however. I think Bloodofox might be better informed there though.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West attempts to explain why a word meaning 'god, deity' came to be the name of a specific deity. He rejects the theory that *Tīwaz was a sky-god because the name does not directly derive from the PIE sky-god. Lindow's quote groups together cognates – for the purpose of simplification – that do not have the same relation with each other: Latin Diana (Dīā-na) comes from Lat. dīus ('godlike') < PIE *diwyós ('divine, heavenly', another derivative of *dyēus), and Celtic Devona (dēuo-na) comes from *deywós. Alcaios (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like West represents a splitter view, i.e. it is important to make Tyr a young phenomenon, and disconnected from the reconstructed PIE sky god. I think we should stick to an etymological approach here.--Berig (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Zimmer's article in the Reallexikon may clarify the situation: Sprachlich. Die schon uridg. Fügung *di̯éu̯-ph2tér- ,Vater Himmel` ist bei fast allen idg. Völkern reich bezeugt, z. B. luwisch Tatiš Tiwaz, hethitisch Šiuš, palaisch Tiyaz,aind.dyáuṣ pitár-,griech.Ζεύς … πατήρ, lat. Iūpiter (erstarrter Vokativ). Die Flexion des grundsprachlichen Wortes für ,(Gott) lichter Himmel, Tag` läßt sich vollständig und mit Sicherheit rekonstruieren: Nom. *di̯éu̯-s, Vokativ *díi̯eu̯, Akk. *di̯ḗ-m, Dat. *diu̯-éi̯, Gen. *diu̯-ós, Lokativ *di̯éu̯-i (Einzelheiten in 6, 751 f.; vgl. ferner 11; 13; 9; 2). In dieser alten Form ist das Wort im Germ. nicht belegt [emphasis mine]. Das auffällig ablautende Paradigma des uridg. Wortes hat bereits früh Umbildungen erfahren, darunter z. T. auch formale und semant. Paradigmenspaltungen (lat.deus neben divus; ,Gott` neben ,Tag`). Die germ. Form *tīwaz geht auf *dei̯u̯os, also nicht den alten Nom. Sing. des Gottesnamens, sondern auf eine in vielen Einzelsprachen als Appelativ ,Gott` verwendete Form derselben Wurzel *diu̯-, nämlich auf ein urspr. Adj. ,göttlich` (vgl. lat.dīvus, altlat. noch deiuos), zurück. Die Einzelheiten der Wortbildung hat Darms (1, 377-380) ausführlich erläutert. Alcaios (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that clarifies it.--Berig (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that it is relevant, and instead it may be misleading, to state that there is no attested common word for magic in Germanic languages. There is no attested common word for sheep between North, West and East Germanic, but we know they had sheep, and likely handled sheep in similar ways. Also, we do have the word seiðr, which is connected to words in both Celtic and Baltic, and so it should have been present in PG. We also have the word rune which meant "magic" and "incantation" and is also found in Celtic. There is also the word galdr ("incantation") which is attested in related forms in other Germanic languages. Another early word for magic is *gan/gin which attested from ON and probably from WG as well (Ganna). Note also the very early importance of wands (*waluz) which is attested in the names of early WG seeresses and from ON sources.--Berig (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is not whether they had an idea for magic, but they didn’t have a common word corresponding to the idea. Instead there are several related words. It will be clearer when I’ve written more.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case Fenno-Ugric influence is added, I just want to say that we need to be careful to distinguish between possible influences from other culture areas. Influences usually go from prestige cultures to less prestigious cultures. The Celtic religion likely had a very formative influence on Germanic religion and needs to be emphasized. However, when it comes to the relationship between Germanic and Fenno-Ugric cultures we have something completely different. The religious influence likely went in the same direction as the loan-words, i.e. virtually uni-directionally from Germanic to Fenno-Ugric. That said there was likely some Fenno-Ugric shamanistic influence on North Germanic since the Sami shamans were feared and respected. Neil Price discusses this influence.--Berig (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I decided not to mention it - the PCRN article I was going to use seems to be discussing things from Norse to Sami mostly and I gather that shamanism is a fairly controversial subject that probably has no bearing on common Germanic religion.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What appears to be controversial is the delimitation. Shamanism sensu stricto is irrelevant, while shamanism sensu lato is relevant to Germanic religion, and to European paganism and spirituality in general. I have no objection to you leaving it out, because mentioning it would only attract POV crusaders fighting for the sensu stricto position.--Berig (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I still haven't had a chance to sit down and review the article as a whole and provide more in-depth feedback, we could use a section on runes. There's been a lot discussion over the years about the Noleby Runestone (Vg 63, potentially as early as 400 CE, runo ... raginakudo) and the Sparlösa Runestone (Vg 119, somewhere around 800 CE, runaʀʀ ... rægi[n]kundu) containing a phrase with a direct cognate found much, much later in the eddic Hávamál. This indicates continuity from a pretty early belief that the runes derived from the gods (the phrase in question is stanza 80, rúnar reginkunnar). Hávamál reaches us today through only a single manuscript dating to around the 13th century. I've encountered discussion about this many times, but @Berig:, any recommended reading on this one? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a little skeptical we need a section on the runes: many cultures believe that their writing system has a divine origin and I don’t think we have sections discussing that in those religions’ articles. The current draft does (or should) mention runes where they are relevant, but I think a whole section is probably overkill. I’m willing to be convinced I’m wrong though.—Ermenrich (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have an intermediary position. The idea that writing was of divine origin is very basic in ancient cultures, but a few sentences on it would not be amiss, though. I would expect the article Ancient Egyptian religion to mention Thoth as the origin of hieroglyphs, and it does mention him as the god of writing at least.

• A Companion to Old Norse-Icelandic Literature and Culture (Blackwell Companions to Literature and Culture) by Rory McTurk (2005), p. 417f.
• Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte (tome II) by Jan de Vries (1970), p. 341f.
• Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit - Auswertung und Neufunde by Wilhelm Heizmann, Morten Axboe, in Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (tome 40) (2011), pp. 333, 401.

I hope these three sources may work.--Berig (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion of how and where we should mention it?—Ermenrich (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind.--Berig (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: I'd like to pick your linguist's brain: is "morphosyntax" a good name for the section I've given it to? Or would something more exact be better? What else goes into "morphosyntax" as a category? For instance, maybe the section on tri- vs. biradical roots would fit under this label - I'm planning to add a section on root and pattern morphology beneath it as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only genuinely morphosyntactic topic is the alignment subsection. Word order is plain syntax, unless it interacts with morphologically marked alignment (a hot topic in Austronesian linguistics); I vaguely remebmber that Satzinger links marked-nominative alignment to a specific word order based on evidence from Berber and Cushitic languages. In that case, "morphosyntax" could be an apt label. Otherwise, "Syntax" would do. Root patterns are better put into a "morphology" section, maybe together with derivation affixes. –Austronesier (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]