Viking mythology and all that goes with it

[Tyra]

Naw, they just had more churches full of gold on Ireland.

[Runesinger]

Originally Posted by Seraphim Belial

The Celts did have a strong parallel in culture with Scandinavia; however, whereas the northmen eventually started becoming more patriarchical in society, the Celts were primarily matriarchal (as demonstrated by he power of queens and the nature of Goddess worship).

OK, now I have to stand up against a common misconception about Norse beliefs. The Norse society was not patriarchal in nature. Both men and women held a more balanced status of differing abilities and strengths. Norse society recognized that men and women were not the same, but equal.

The use of the Patronymic in naming and the prowess of men in feats of physical strength and battle would tend to make one think that Norse society was male-dominated.

However, women were seen as greater in spiritual/psychic abilities. The Norse version of shaman, the Seidhkona, was almost exclusively a female role. Women were also seen as the lore-keepers. They had great authority in rulings on law and customs.

Women were the source of wisdom in the community. Women were expected to grow in wisdom as they matured. Consequently, as a woman grew older, her value in the community increased. This is a very different view from our youth-obsessed modern society.

Th sagas have many incidents where great heroes sought wisdom from their grandmothers. Even the name "Edda" comes from the old Icelandic word from "Great-Grandmother," for a Great-grandmother would be seen as the greatest source of wisdom. The older women were often counseled before a battle.

This is not to sat that women stayed home while men went to battle. There were sagas that showed husband and wife fighting side-by-side. Also single women went to battle as shield-maidens (Skjoldmar).

In Norse society there was more cross-over in gender roles. Each person did what he or she did best. The Norse environment was harsh, and everyone had to perform to their greatest potential.

Runesinger

[Erzebeth.Rouge]

great post Rune

[Krigloch the Furious]

aye, and it makes perfect sense.
I like the idea of women being badasses at what they did. and not "lets make teh babies lol"

[Pessimism]

Originally Posted by Runesinger

OK, now I have to stand up against a common misconception about Norse beliefs. The Norse society was not patriarchal in nature. Both men and women held a more balanced status of differing abilities and strengths. Norse society recognized that men and women were not the same, but equal.

The use of the Patronymic in naming and the prowess of men in feats of physical strength and battle would tend to make one think that Norse society was male-dominated.

However, women were seen as greater in spiritual/psychic abilities. The Norse version of shaman, the Seidhkona, was almost exclusively a female role. Women were also seen as the lore-keepers. They had great authority in rulings on law and customs.

Women were the source of wisdom in the community. Women were expected to grow in wisdom as they matured. Consequently, as a woman grew older, her value in the community increased. This is a very different view from our youth-obsessed modern society.

Th sagas have many incidents where great heroes sought wisdom from their grandmothers. Even the name "Edda" comes from the old Icelandic word from "Great-Grandmother," for a Great-grandmother would be seen as the greatest source of wisdom. The older women were often counseled before a battle.

This is not to sat that women stayed home while men went to battle. There were sagas that showed husband and wife fighting side-by-side. Also single women went to battle as shield-maidens (Skjoldmar).

In Norse society there was more cross-over in gender roles. Each person did what he or she did best. The Norse environment was harsh, and everyone had to perform to their greatest potential.

Runesinger

I never meant to say that they were unequal in culture or anything Runesinger (far from the truth, it's one of the traits I'm most proud of in fact); I was just mentioning a comparison between the two cultures. I was mainly referring to the "Patronymic in naming" in my post.

Next time I will word my post more carefully

[Runesinger]

Originally Posted by Seraphim Belial

I never meant to say that they were unequal in culture or anything Runesinger (far from the truth, it's one of the traits I'm most proud of in fact); I was just mentioning a comparison between the two cultures. I was mainly referring to the "Patronymic in naming" in my post.

Next time I will word my post more carefully

I guess I misunderstood you. Some of the Norse beliefs can cause people to make false assumptions. I'm glad you clarified your statement. Thanks.

Runesinger

[Bates]

Too drunk to think (In a foreign area with free booze) but I felt the need to drink to the latest round of comments. I can't even hardly see to type,. Speelchecker ftw!

[Knarfi]

Originally Posted by Bates

Too drunk to think (In a foreign area with free booze) but I felt the need to drink to the latest round of comments. I can't even hardly see to type,. Speelchecker ftw!

LOL

Originally Posted by Tyra

Naw, they just had more churches full of gold on Ireland.

LOL!

Well.. got nothing else to add here like usual

[Erzebeth.Rouge]

ive forgot a detail : what color is Sleipnir?

[Vikingkid3]

I was reading a book about a kid who was supposed to be Leif Erikssons son (It's not supposed to be true or anything but it's a good book, not sure how accurate it is but it's not bad. Viking by Tim Severin) and the book said that the kid has the seidr power, the whole second sight thing. I understand what it is basically, like how one who posseses this power can see ghosts or events that are happening in different places, or they can sort of see the future but I still want to learn more about it. I haven't been able to find much on google so I would be greatful for any help.

[Tyra]

Welcome to opening Pandora's box, kid. There is loads out there, but mostly crap. A lot is ambiguous, so people tend to fill in their own interpretations. It's also a huuuuuge area to cover. I'll see if I can come up with some good sites or books, because it really is not a good thing to fuck around with. You get this wrong, you can get really messed up. Ask Runesinger, she knows all about it, too. Both of us know some of how to do things, neither one of us does it much. For a reason.

[Bates]

Ahh, nothing like making a pointless drunken post, then promptly passing out. I had meant to make a point about the Norse liking to fight the Celts because the Celts could actually fight worth a damn. Sure, they may have lost a lot of the time, but at least they always fought, what fun would there be in an enemy who always surrendered?

@Erzebeth: Sleipnir is grey, according to page 43 of Glyfaginning "But Loki had such dealings with Svadilfaerie that somewhat later he gave birth to a foal. It was grey and had eight legs, and this is the best horse among gods and men."
Now, I'm not totally sure if that means grey as in "All white horses are called grey", meaning he would be truly white, but I personally tend to imagine him as a very pale grey, with darker dapples. Which has nothing to do with anything but my imagination.

[Pessimism]

Anyone care to take a gamble at the mess I made in my earlier post (#1021)? I had some decent questions!!!

[Erzebeth.Rouge]

Originally Posted by Bates

@Erzebeth: Sleipnir is grey, according to page 43 of Glyfaginning "But Loki had such dealings with Svadilfaerie that somewhat later he gave birth to a foal. It was grey and had eight legs, and this is the best horse among gods and men."
Now, I'm not totally sure if that means grey as in "All white horses are called grey", meaning he would be truly white, but I personally tend to imagine him as a very pale grey, with darker dapples. Which has nothing to do with anything but my imagination.

i will then wait for other cofirmation before coloring Sleipnir, thanks Bates though i too cant picture him brown lol :P

[Pessimism]

I've also read Bates source - I don't know what the original word is, but the translations tend to say gray...(at least the ones I read - don't take my word for it though, I need to build up a rep on knowing these things on this board for my 2 cents to be accepted firsthand )

[Tyra]

Originally Posted by Seraphim Belial

Studying Hinduism really gives you this interconnected feeling of the ancient indo-aryan/european religions....

Some obvious (and notable) things are the heirarchies of the Gods and Goddesses; ex: Dyaüs Pitr and the connections to Zues, Óðinn, etc. there sons (Dyaüs was the father of Indra, God of the storm (had a twin though - Agni), Óðinn and his buttload of kids (most notable Þórr, another God of the Storm). Hell, you can even compare the creation of the universe/world with Ymir and Purusha (both dismembered).
The major differences though are the order and change in which the family relationships happen - they all seem to go back to one root order, and the split off and divide as time moves on; mothers become sisters or daughters, some pair up to represent other forces fo nature that people started dualizing, and some traits switched over to other Gods (Óðinn and the hunt, death, war - completely comparable to Rudra, or Lugus/Lú with his magic and poetry); Vritra is comparable to Jörmungandr in there animosity towards Indra/Þórr, etc. (I haven't even started talking about Surtr and his domain yet!)

Another ex: Óðinn, Vi, and Vé (Vi & Vé...seriously, are those the only recorded names for them? What of Lóðurr?) are 3rd generation gods (sound Greek anyone?) - again though, where the greeks had the devourment of the children (Χρόνος => Ouranus => Krónos => Ζεύς) and etc. - What did the norse have in this area? Búri and Borr aren't talked of much afterward where they're first mentioned...ayone care to elaborate on why this is? What theories there are for this?




The etymological roots of each word make it completely obvious that they are connected (if the translations are indeed correct).... I suppose I want to know if anyone knows about any MAJOR studies on the comparisons of these various religions? Because if there isn't...I just found my newthesis for grad school

Dude, I totally missed this question somehow! It is an interesting one, and it has been studied at length. The most prominent researchers are Sir William Jones and Dumézil. Jones was the one who first saw the connection between the language in the Vedic scriptures and the greek and latin scriptures, which started not only the study of the languages as being inter-related, but also, as a consequence, the religions. Dumézil studied the religious aspect at around the time of WWII. Tons of work is built upon his research, and most of his hypothesies stands unchallenged to this day. If you wanted something really interesting to study, seriously, I'd like to see a paper on Dumézil himself and how it relates to the study of Indo-European religions. Turns out that his research was partially funded by Mussolini, in response to the Germans during the war depicting their ancestors and their germanic culture as being the ultimate Über-mensch culture, so much better than all others. Obviously, Dumézil based much of his research on Roman and Greek texts, where the Germanic tribes were (mostly, with the notable exception of Tacitus) depicted as stupid, uncivilized, over-sized Barbarians who lived in the sticks in animal pelst while the Grek and Romans were so much more refined. You can follow this depiction of the Germanic tribes based on Roman political propaganda right through to this very day. It is very interisting how much of Dumézil's almost sacred theory can be unraveled just by proving that it is based on political propaganda of one kind or another (his own or nationalists of the 1880's or even Roman or Greek).
Anyhow, there is plenty of newer research, most of which I had to read for my last year's paper, and most of which falls on the heading of language research, rather than, say, archaeological research, or even religion studies. Someone could actually make a good dent in this subject just by pointing out the falsehoods in the previous research, since so much of it is based on Dumézil. This includes the theory that the Indo-Europeans arrived from the Russian steppes and bowled over all of Europe's population, rendering them all, except for the Basques, extinct. That whole theory is based on Dumézil and a really large circle argument. That thesis basically stands based on the fact that there are not too many people who have come up with anything that's a whole lot better. All those theories are about equal. This one is the only one that's based on a specific political agenda, though.
Anyhow, as you can see, I can go on about this forever...(What topic can't I go on about forever? Duh.)

[Tyra]

Originally Posted by Erzebeth.Rouge

i will then wait for other cofirmation before coloring Sleipnir, thanks Bates though i too cant picture him brown lol :P

"Þat var grátt ok hafði átta fætr"=It was grey and had eight feet.

[Erzebeth.Rouge]

awesome ! thank you!

[Bates]

Originally Posted by Seraphim Belial

I've also read Bates source - I don't know what the original word is, but the translations tend to say gray...(at least the ones I read - don't take my word for it though, I need to build up a rep on knowing these things on this board for my 2 cents to be accepted firsthand )

Heh, I'd rather people not take my word on anything. My personal opinion is that taking anyone's word on anything is about as close as you can get to sin in my world view. Thinking and learning for yourself is of paramount value to me, following other people's words, well, I think all of us can think of at least one good example of why it is to be avoided.

That whole Dumezil thing sounds rather interesting.... but I think my poor brain can't take on any more topics right now. I'd be interested in seeing what you more scholarly types can turn up tho.

[Tyra]

Originally Posted by Bates

Heh, I'd rather people not take my word on anything. My personal opinion is that taking anyone's word on anything is about as close as you can get to sin in my world view. Thinking and learning for yourself is of paramount value to me, following other people's words, well, I think all of us can think of at least one good example of why it is to be avoided.

I think that's the definition of "Norse", dear.

[Pessimism]

I had a migration question; phenotypically, people say I look like a damned Fin and a Swede (no proof though); counting there is no such thing as a pure bloodline and to satisfy my curiosity, I was wondering - what parties migrated to Scandinavia & Finland from Europe or other places? say circa 1100-1800 b.c.e.?

I'd at least like to know the heritage of the peoples I supposedly look like.
I know a little bit about the native peoples of Finland (and I love there music), but still...my memory is fading fast - any help?

[Tyra]

The answer is "who knows". The tribes that later formed the Norse people were already there by that time. You'd have to go several thousand years farther back, and even then it's iffy. There are several theories, and there is a sizeable difference in the time frame between some of them. I can tell you what the archaeological evidence says IMHO. I mean, some things are for sure, while most other stuff is iffy - all of it is up to your own personal interpretation of the archaeology etc. A lot of people base thier ideas on linguistic research and/or on DNA on top of the archaeological stuff. Two main theories have grown out of this, and up until recently, they've really been the only two that researchers have accepted (this is one of several issues that became taboo because the nazis meddled with it, and it stayed a hot potato that nobody would touch for so long that the one theory that was created stood alone for the better part of 20 years, even though it's got blatant flaws). The problem with that is that one theory is based on DNA research, which is still in the process of being assembled, and the older research, upon which much of the theory is based, we now know is outdated and inaccurate. The linguistic evidence, like we discussed before, harks back to Dumézil and Gimbutas, and a flawed circle argument where the archaeological research relies on flawed linguistic research, which relies on the flawed archaeological research. This renders quite a few theories useless.
We are left with some newer theories that make better sense, but that have not been fully explored for the Nordic area. I can give you some names and som basic ideas of how they are laid out, but just so you know, you're looking at about 10 000 years BP. The Finns, in speciffically, are difficult to research without taking a stance in this ongoing battle, and to truly get aquainted with the material you need to for the most basic opinion, you pretty much need a few months to concentrate on just this topic alone (which I did for last year's paper - needless to say, I did not choose that topic for myself!!). It's huge and deep and you have to be very familiar with the archaeology, and then you have to know how DNA works, then learn all you can about all sorts of obsucre slavic dialects, Tocharian and Hittite, and sprinkle it all with a bit of flawed Dumézilian-Roman political crap about the religious practises of people who lived 7000 years ago and had no written language... But, like I said, there are some things that the archaeological evidence can tell us, but it goes farther back than your time frame. There isn't a whole lot of movement into (or out of) Sweden in that time, just visits to tother parts. The movement comes later, with the Germanic tribes pouring out of Scandinavia, bowling over Europe, including the Romans, in the first few centuries AD. Most of the mingeling with other people happened either well before your time frame, some in the Late Iron Age or in the historical era, when there arctually is written evidence.

[TheLastWithPaganBlood]

Plus then you have to take into account that firstly, thralls were tken from here and there, though mostly from Ireland, but also from Slavonic and Baltic populations. Sometimes more from one or the other (south-eastern Skåne for example had relations with baltic tribes that reach very far back). The biggest foreign population in Sweden are the Finns, some of them having lived there for longer than others. Then there has been immigration from Germans, lots of Germans. Stockholm is pretty much founded by them. Then the Wallonians which were skilled workers, came quote a few of them. And some french. Some balts, Estonians mostly, because of all kinds of Russian/Soviet invasions. Then of course the occasional Frenchamn, Dutch, Italian, Englander and Scotsman and what have you, but not so many (more with the nobility). That's all I could think of from the top of my head, but out of all these, Germans, and the Finns in the northern parts, are probably the largest foreign influx.

[Bates]

Well, Tyra just debunked the only theories I'm familiar with, and I lack most of my resources ATM, still busy bringing down property values in Orange County.
The only thing I know about Finns would be from the ones I know, and they're all fucking nuts.

But my understanding is that the Finns (at least originally and lingustically) were more closely related to the Baltic tribes then the Germanic ones. I don't know a whole hell of a lot more then that, and the hotel internet is so slow (and I don't have my bookmarks on this laptop), that I'd rather just sit here and make something up then do real research.

No one is really sure, it seems now that that field of research is picking up again, all the old theories and things taken for granted are being constantly revised if not totally discarded. So I say.... a good story that has at least some truth to it works for me. I mean, even the genealogical research people do, that's prone to one big flaw (that of course I'd think of)... they assume that the children are always the mans. And I somehow don't think adultery is a recent invention, I'm sure it's existed as long as the concept of marriage. Yes, I have a jaded outlook on everything. Well, not so much jaded as I think that people, while cultures and details may change, have pretty much been people since the beginning of humanity as we know it. No one's perfect.

[Tyra]

It's not jaded, it's realistic. Then again, there's this:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science....ap/index.html