Odin's Wife Mother Earth in Germanic Mythology

[Native]

I liked the video and I do not see the astronomical connections you make.

Well, this is just my complaints with the Jackson Crawford (and others) explanations of the Norse Creation Myths.
We know this myth speaks of at least "3 worlds" and not just 1 as in Midgard, the Earth. We also know that Odin rides in the SKY on his eight legged horse and we even know that the heavenly vault is made of Ymir´s skull, but these mythical descriptions, and others, are not put together into an astronomical scenario and interpretation.

Norse creation myth with the Muspelheim of fire and Niflheim of ice clearly representing the environmental conditions of those living so far north.

I follow you in this which also were my thoughts for a long time since beginning my specific interests for the global Creation Myths.

Quote from the Norse Creation Myth:
"Before there was soil, or sky, or any green thing, there was only the gaping abyss of Ginnungagap. This chaos of perfect silence and darkness lay between the homeland of elemental fire, Muspelheim, and the homeland of elemental ice, Niflheim".

Of course this can be compared to the annual rhythms of the Sun and temperature changes and it certainly also have been scholarly suggested too. But the story begins with NOTHING of the present terrestrial or celestial scenarios.

Furthermore:
"Frost from Niflheim and billowing flames from Muspelheim crept toward each other until they met in Ginnungagap. Amid the hissing and sputtering, the fire melted the ice, and the drops formed themselves into Ymir, the first of the godlike but destructive giants" - And all the rest of the initially mentioned deities which forms the Norse Mythical Worlds.

The sun and moon were critical to all northern societies that dealt with agricultural aspects with the milky way providing light during the night but but the stars do not seem to have the significance of the sun and moon.

Agreed in the first sentence - but the stars, star constellations and the Milky Way imagery played a big importance in the specific celestial stories, as illustrated in these links:
Rock Art Star Constellations
Rock Art Milky Way Images - (Also resembling the Norse mythical Audhumbla celestial river of milk, a very native and logical way of describing the white Milky Way).

There is little about the planetary movements at least in what we have been given in surving myths

Yes, the planets were in generally just thought as "Wandering Stars" but in historic time they were given names from the Roman Pantheon when the empire adopted Christianity - which has confused lots of historic interpreters and scholars to interpret planets as primary gods and a goddess.

There can be no doubt the were aware of the star patterns and stars like Polaris in the far north must have been significant and I need to look more into this.

I fully agree in this - See more here: Rock Art Celestial Pole

Regards
Native

 

[Bear Wild]

Well, this is just my complaints with the Jackson Crawford (and others) explanations of the Norse Creation Myths.
We know this myth speaks of at least "3 worlds" and not just 1 as in Midgard, the Earth. We also know that Odin rides in the SKY on his eight legged horse and we even know that the heavenly vault is made of Ymir´s skull, but these mythical descriptions, and others, are not put together into an astronomical scenario and interpretation.

I follow you in this which also were my thoughts for a long time since beginning my specific interests for the global Creation Myths.

Quote from the Norse Creation Myth:
"Before there was soil, or sky, or any green thing, there was only the gaping abyss of Ginnungagap. This chaos of perfect silence and darkness lay between the homeland of elemental fire, Muspelheim, and the homeland of elemental ice, Niflheim".

Of course this can be compared to the annual rhythms of the Sun and temperature changes and it certainly also have been scholarly suggested too. But the story begins with NOTHING of the present terrestrial or celestial scenarios.

Furthermore:
"Frost from Niflheim and billowing flames from Muspelheim crept toward each other until they met in Ginnungagap. Amid the hissing and sputtering, the fire melted the ice, and the drops formed themselves into Ymir, the first of the godlike but destructive giants" - And all the rest of the initially mentioned deities which forms the Norse Mythical Worlds.

Agreed in the first sentence - but the stars, star constellations and the Milky Way imagery played a big importance in the specific celestial stories, as illustrated in these links:
Rock Art Star Constellations
Rock Art Milky Way Images - (Also resembling the Norse mythical Audhumbla celestial river of milk, a very native and logical way of describing the white Milky Way).

Yes, the planets were in generally just thought as "Wandering Stars" but in historic time they were given names from the Roman Pantheon when the empire adopted Christianity - which has confused lots of historic interpreters and scholars to interpret planets as primary gods and a goddess.

I fully agree in this - See more here: Rock Art Celestial Pole

Regards
Native

I am not ignoring the information but need time to read it.

 

[Native]

I am not ignoring the information but need time to read it.

Of course. Take all the time you need

 

[Bear Wild]

Well, this is just my complaints with the Jackson Crawford (and others) explanations of the Norse Creation Myths.
We know this myth speaks of at least "3 worlds" and not just 1 as in Midgard, the Earth. We also know that Odin rides in the SKY on his eight legged horse and we even know that the heavenly vault is made of Ymir´s skull, but these mythical descriptions, and others, are not put together into an astronomical scenario and interpretation.

I follow you in this which also were my thoughts for a long time since beginning my specific interests for the global Creation Myths.

Quote from the Norse Creation Myth:
"Before there was soil, or sky, or any green thing, there was only the gaping abyss of Ginnungagap. This chaos of perfect silence and darkness lay between the homeland of elemental fire, Muspelheim, and the homeland of elemental ice, Niflheim".

Of course this can be compared to the annual rhythms of the Sun and temperature changes and it certainly also have been scholarly suggested too. But the story begins with NOTHING of the present terrestrial or celestial scenarios.

Furthermore:
"Frost from Niflheim and billowing flames from Muspelheim crept toward each other until they met in Ginnungagap. Amid the hissing and sputtering, the fire melted the ice, and the drops formed themselves into Ymir, the first of the godlike but destructive giants" - And all the rest of the initially mentioned deities which forms the Norse Mythical Worlds.

Agreed in the first sentence - but the stars, star constellations and the Milky Way imagery played a big importance in the specific celestial stories, as illustrated in these links:
Rock Art Star Constellations
Rock Art Milky Way Images - (Also resembling the Norse mythical Audhumbla celestial river of milk, a very native and logical way of describing the white Milky Way).

Yes, the planets were in generally just thought as "Wandering Stars" but in historic time they were given names from the Roman Pantheon when the empire adopted Christianity - which has confused lots of historic interpreters and scholars to interpret planets as primary gods and a goddess.

I fully agree in this - See more here: Rock Art Celestial Pole

Regards
Native

Thanks for the links to the milky way mythology. The ideas are interesting, just wish more was preserved. Again I have no doubt the stars and the obvious milky way which would have been so vivid without all of our industrial pollution was important to them. It is difficult to make to strong of a connection but it is equally important not to exclude possibilities.

Found some of many interesting rock art from this site.
www.arild-hauge.com/helleristngbild.htm
All but two which I identify as my pictures came from this site.

I found it interesting after a recent spiritual journey to Ireland to find such similar patterns as seen in this carving. Stars? do not kno but these patterns were apparently widespread.

Could this be cassiopia? We will never know but it is worth the thought.

There are a lot of carvings depicting boats and this was mentioned in the book this thread was named for.

Look at these next carvings with my own picture that follows inside the mound of the hostages Ireland and longcrew Ireland.

This is my picture in the mound of the hostage's Ireland

Or inside Longcrew Ireland.

Here we see those markings next to ships.

These are just for fun.
Two wolves

Early rendition of Big Bird.

A Whale?

And a reindeer.

There must be a balance between the evidence and open mindedness to the possibilites.

 

[Native]

Hello Wild Fox and thanks for your reply I´ll comment in between in red font. (Expand this)

Thanks for the links to the milky way mythology. The ideas are interesting, just wish more was preserved. Again I have no doubt the stars and the obvious milky way which would have been so vivid without all of our industrial pollution was important to them. It is difficult to make to strong of a connection but it is equally important not to exclude possibilities.

Yes, the entire approach should be in "the minds of our ancestors".

Found some of many interesting rock art from this site.
www.arild-hauge.com/helleristngbild.htm
All but two which I identify as my pictures came from this site.

I found it interesting after a recent spiritual journey to Ireland to find such similar patterns as seen in this carving. Stars? do not kno but these patterns were apparently widespread.

IMO the Cup Marks specifically show stars and other celestial conditions at large,

Could this be cassiopia? We will never know but it is worth the thought.

Yes, it most likely is Cassiopeia.

There are a lot of carvings depicting boats and this was mentioned in the book this thread was named for.

In Norse Mythology we have several mythical ships and this is also mentioned in other cultural stories, for instant in Egyptian myths. In my opinion the figure is a stylized image of the Milky Way contours as illustrated here

Look at these next carvings with my own picture that follows inside the mound of the hostages Ireland and longcrew Ireland.

If you´re watching the night Sky scenario in a clear night over some time in the darker period of the year, you´ll notise that some stars and star constellations seemingly rotate around a central point because of the rotation of the Earth.

It´s very natural to describe this nocturnal scenario with symbols of concentric rings and eventually a central cup mark.

This is my picture in the mound of the hostage's Ireland
View attachment 40586

An elaborated image of the celestial pole and the revolving stars.

Or inside Longcrew Ireland.
View attachment 40587

Here we see those markings next to ships.

Many Rock Art ships have a marking above "the deck", Sometimes with just a cup mark, a cupmark with a single ring, and even a so called "Sunwheel" with spokes as seen here:

If you take the ship to symbolize the Milky Way contours, you get the cupmark and wheel to symbolize the celestial pole around which the Milky Way contours seemingly moves during the night. That is: This Wheel is connected to the Sun as lots of scholars have it but the Wheel of the Celestial Pole.

These are just for fun.
Two wolves

Could be natural - or could be the Little Bear constellation as it re-(W) volves

Early rendition of Big Bird.
Our ancestors also imaged the Milky Way contours as a "big man in the Sky" (Odin, Thor) The natural way of depicting this celestial scenario is to draw a man with bird head = "something what´s going on in the Sky where birds fly".

Male looking figures revolving around the symbol of the Celestial Pole compared with a star atlas image of the Milky Way contours and the marking of the celestial pole.

A Whale?

Most likely, yes. (Otherwise one could think of the Midgard Serpent in the Norse Mythology, but it certainly looks very much as a Whale)

And a reindeer.
Yes to this too - but in some myths, bovine animals also is connected to the Stories of Creation as in the Norse and several other cultural Myths

There must be a balance between the evidence and open mindedness to the possibilites.

Indeed so. And the very basic method is to "go out there" and see for yourself as our ancestors did and to follow their natural mindset of observe and describe in simple symbols what they´ve observed.

This of course also demand an astronomical approach - and when it comes to the "deeper stories of creation" it also demands some cosmological knowledge when trying to explain the ancient imagery.

From Venslev, Denmark, shows some Cup Mark Star Constellations. The very revolving scenario was embedded with all kinds of telling in order to orally hold onto the astronomical knowledge and its connections to the seasonal changes of growth which provided everything for our ancestors.

 

[Hildeburh]

Odin is not just connected to the Norse Midgard dimension but to the entire viewpoint from the Earth/Midgard perspective, including the Sky which resembles the skull of Ymir.

The Odin connection to Audhumla needs no speculations at all as the creator animal, Audhumbla, "licks all primordial deites" out of the rocks in the Norse creation story. A quandary just occurs as scholar fails to connect the mythical, astronomical and cosmological dots

Auðumbla's mythological role is attested only in Snorri Sturlusson's Prose Edda in Gylfaginning. Auðumbla is involved in the emergence from the ice of Ymir, Buri and the Jötnar. Auðumbla does not create any of these beings, she licks them free from the ice (not rock) and nourishes them; Auðumbla is herself nourished by salt licks in the ice. In the Norse creation myth life results from the intersection of aspects the worlds of ice (Niflheim) and fire (Múspellheim) in Ginnungagap.

Ymir was created before Auðumbla:

"Just as cold arose out of Niflheim, and all terrible things, so also all that looked toward Múspellheim became hot and glowing; but Ginnungagap was as mild as windless air, and when the breath of heat met the rime, so that it melted and dripped, life was quickened from the yeast-drops, by the power of that which sent the heat, and became a man's form. And that man is named Ymir, but the Rime-Giants call him Aurgelimir"
Prose Edda Gylfaginning

In turn Auðumbla was created after Ymir from the same process:

"Straightway after the rime dripped, there sprang from it the cow called Auðumbla; four streams of milk ran from her udders, and she nourished Ymir."
Prose Edda Gylfaginning

Ymir was hermaphroditic whilst he slept the Jotnar leapt forth from his legs and the sweat of his armpits.

"when (Ymir) he slept, a sweat came upon him, and there grew under his left hand a man and a woman, and one of his feet begat a son with the other; and thus the races are come; these are the Rime-Giants. The old Rime-Giant, him we call Ymir."
Prose Edda Gylfaginning

Buri, who was the grandfather of Odin, Villi and Ve, was likewise licked free from the ice by Auðumbla; not created by her. A primordial cow features in Proto Indo-European myth but as with Snorri' version Auðumbla is not a creator, more like a provider of nourishment as would have been the case with cattle of the proto Indo-European and proto Germanic human populations to which these myths belong.

In the earliest Germanic creation myth, as attested by Tacitus in Germania (98 CE), Tuisto who was born from the earth is the divine ancestor of the Germanic peoples. Through his son Mannus's three sons the tribes the Ingaevones, the Herminones, and the Istaevones got there names. Tuisto, is commonly connected to the Proto-Germanic root tvai ("two") and its derivative tvis ("twice"; "doubled"). The Germanic Tuisto (assuming a connection with Tvastr) has been theorised by a few academics as originally having been the grandfather of Ymir (cognate to Yama). Incidentally, Indian mythology also places Manu (cognate to Germanic Mannus), the Vedic progenitor of mankind, as a son of Vivaswn, thus making him the brother of Yama/Ymir.(Alexander, 2005).


Teutsch, Deutsch, Tyr (Norse), Teshub (Hurrian),Tuisco, Tuisto, Tvastr, Taksa armourer -- out of Tower of Babel

It is best not to read too much into the single late reference to Auðumbla in Snorri Sturlusson Prose Edda. Better still not to insist on cosmological associations that are not attested in Germanic mythology or in Indo-European mythology for that matter.

I know that there are several goddesses in Norse Mythology who can be interpreted as "Earth Goddesses" but as Odin belongs to the celestial imagery, his wife also must be connected to the same celestial realm, whether she is called Frigg, Freja or Jörð - as elaborated by Jackson Crawford in the video.

There isnt actually, Norse mythology only vaguely personifies the earth and they are mentioned only in the genealogy of Frigg and Thor and as the wife of Odin or as Old Norse words for earth. The sun and the moon are also only vaguely personified in Norse mythology and the the only stars mentioned are the North star which is not specifically linked to any god/ess and Audvandil's toe; which was made a star by Thor.

I don't understand your allusion to Jackson his hypothesis is that Freyja is a hypostasis of Frigg not that they are connected to the earth or sky or that they are interchangeable with Jörð.

Goddess Jörð (Old Norse for earth) most logically shoud be interpreted in the terms of "soil, mud or clay" and NOT with the capitol Earth as in this planet. Jörð then represent the creative Mother Goddess force and former of all "firm matters" and objects in the Milky Way, just like the Egyptian Goddess Hathor and other classical goddesses. In this sense we have a Primeval Goddess connected to the creation itself (Frigg or Jörð) and a secondary Goddess of Earth, Goddess Freja or Nerthus.

That is your UPG, in terms of Norse mythology it is not a supportable hypothesis.

Or, as elaborated by Jackson Crawford in the video, they´re all one and the same from different cultural periods and different local texts. And seen from my perspective, they all represent the prime Mother Goddess of Creation of the Goddesses of Love and fertility. Not just the human fertility but the very creation in all it´s forms in the ancient known part of the Universe.

I think you may have either misunderstood or misquoted Jackson his hypothesis is Freyja is a hypostasis of Frigg, nothing more. There is no Mother Goddess of Creation in Norse mythology and in Norse mythology a mother goddess plays no part in human creation or animation.

From - Odin - Wikipedia
“Old Norse texts portray Odin as one-eyed and long-bearded, frequently wielding a spear named Gungnir and wearing a cloak and a broad hat. He is often accompanied by his animal companions and familiars—the wolves Geri and Freki and the ravens Huginn and Muninn, who bring him information from all over Midgard—and rides the flying, eight-legged steed Sleipnir across the sky and into the underworld”.Obviously Odin is a Sky deity, so you have missed something in this matter.

I am wondering what exactly in this paragraph alludes to Odin being a sky deity, mythological connection to animals do not connect a god/ess to the sky or earth in Norse mythology. Sleipnir can either be considered a steed to be rode from place to place or as has been suggested by scholars as a shamanic animal; or both. Likewise, Huginn and Muninn can either be read as actual ravens or spiritual projections of Odin's mind that take the form of ravens; or both. Odin's link to ravens is also related to war, battle and death rather than anything to do with the sky. In Norse mythology Odin can best be described as a psychopomp, shaman, wanderer, god of poetry, wisdom and death.

This is a scholarly cultural misunderstanding. The fact is that the Greek Zeus and the Roman Jupiter BOTH represent the SAME primeval and pantheon Sky Father in different cultures, just like Odin in the Germanic and Norse traditions. Of course they are similar as they represent the similar mythical descriptions in the creation.

Besides that, these deities cannot be described as deities of the “the daytime sky.” as no one can observe anything which looks as a male Father Sky deity in the Sky at day time. This description rather points forward to a nocturnal image of light figures on the night Sky.

A scholarly and cultural misunderstanding? Etymology is pretty clear and Odin is not etymologically connected to *Dyeus Phater, linguistically in Old Norse that would be Tyr. The Old Norse theonym Óðinn, Old English Wóden, Old Saxon Wōden, and Old High German Wuotan derive from the Proto-Germanic theonym *wōđanaz. Óðinn is formed from the noun óðr, “ecstasy, fury, inspiration,” and the suffix -inn which approximately means 'master of'; an apt description of Odin who is considered a god of war, death, magic, poetry and wisdom.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Odin is not just connected to the Norse Midgard dimension but to the entire viewpoint from the Earth/Midgard perspective, including the Sky which resembles the skull of Ymir.
The Odin connection to Audhumla needs no speculations at all as the creator animal, Audhumbla, "licks all primordial deites" out of the rocks in the Norse creation story. A quandary just occurs as scholar fails to connect the mythical, astronomical and cosmological dots.

Auðumbla's mythological role is attested only in Snorri Sturlusson's Prose Edda in Gylfaginning. Auðumbla is involved in the emergence from the ice of Ymir, Buri and the Jötnar. Auðumbla does not create any of these beings, she licks them free from the ice (not rock) and nourishes them; Auðumbla is herself nourished by salt licks in the ice.

I was speaking of Odin as a Sky god and his creative connection to Audhumbla and nothing more. Yes, Ymir was the first entity and I´ve not said anything else.

How can Audhumbla be involved in "the emergence from the ice of Ymir, Buri and the Jötnar" and STILL NOT be a creative/creator symbol? What is the symbolism here at all if not a genuine primordial cow creator/nursering symbol?

Buri, who was the grandfather of Odin, Villi and Ve, was likewise licked free from the ice by Auðumbla; not created by her. A primordial cow features in Proto Indo-European myth but as with Snorri' version Auðumbla is not a creator, more like a provider of nourishment as would have been the case with cattle of the proto Indo-European and proto Germanic human populations to which these myths belong.

You have the same symbolism problematics here as above.

In turn Auðumbla was created after Ymir from the same process:
"Straightway after the rime dripped, there sprang from it the cow called Auðumbla; four streams of milk ran from her udders, and she nourished Ymir."

This isn´t consistent IMO if taking it literary. If Ymir was the first entity in the Norse Creation, then Ymir must have created Audhumbla, which in this sentence appears to be the first entity to come out from the dripping ice. (Or maybe both Ymir and Audhumbla appears simultaneously)

It is best not to read too much into the single late reference to Auðumbla in Snorri Sturlusson Prose Edda. Better still not to insist on cosmological associations that are not attested in Germanic mythology or in Indo-European mythology for that matter.

Yes it is best to compare all cultural myths before taking any stands. But if you don´t connect any of these myths to something palpable, they will be taken as mere hear sayings and fairy tales. For instants: If Odin is a Sky god, you have to place him in the factual Sky.

Why at all did many cultural ancestors choose a cow as a (creative) nursering symbol, do you think?

I said above:
I know that there are several goddesses in Norse Mythology who can be interpreted as "Earth Goddesses" but as Odin belongs to the celestial imagery, his wife also must be connected to the same celestial realm, whether she is called Frigg, Freja or Jörð - as elaborated by Jackson Crawford in the video".

There isnt actually, Norse mythology only vaguely personifies the earth and they are mentioned only in the genealogy of Frigg and Thor and as the wife of Odin or as Old Norse words for earth. The sun and the moon are also only vaguely personified in Norse mythology and the the only stars mentioned are the North star which is not specifically linked to any god/ess and Audvandil's toe; which was made a star by Thor.

When discussing "goddesses in generally" we have to connect all these to creation as such and this takes place both on Earth and in the Sky as a prime creation story, så you can have both a goddess in the Sky as well for the Earth.

Now, tell me how Thor can make the stars which represent the Audvandil's toe? He then most certainly be a Sky God, right?

I don't understand your allusion to Jackson his hypothesis is that Freyja is a hypostasis of Frigg not that they are connected to the earth or sky or that they are interchangeable with Jörð.

I´m NOT alluded to Jackson regarding his linguistic and etymological interpretations and comparisons. I just wonder why he don´t make the astronomical/cosmological connections when he speaks of gods and goddess. To me it seems that he never have thought of this. That´s all.

I said:
"Goddess Jörð (Old Norse for earth) most logically shoud be interpreted in the terms of "soil, mud or clay" and NOT with the capitol Earth as in this planet. Jörð then represent the creative Mother Goddess force and former of all "firm matters" and objects in the Milky Way, just like the Egyptian Goddess Hathor and other classical goddesses. In this sense we have a Primeval Goddess connected to the creation itself (Frigg or Jörð) and a secondary Goddess of Earth, Goddess Freja or Nerthus".

That is your UPG, in terms of Norse mythology it is not a supportable hypothesis.

Of course it is not in the inherited Norse Myths as the authors of the Norse myths didn´t make this connection and later scholars also didn´t make such a concrete and specific "soil, mud or clay" - connection in the Norse Myths. This knowledge can only occur from studying Comparative Mythology and see if, where and when there are connections in the cultural Myths of Creation.

I think you may have either misunderstood or misquoted Jackson his hypothesis is Freyja is a hypostasis of Frigg, nothing more. There is no Mother Goddess of Creation in Norse mythology and in Norse mythology a mother goddess plays no part in human creation or animation.

Well, if you can´t see them, they don´t exist Or maybe they just disappeared for you in the large cultural overlayed crowd of deities in the Norse Myth

I said:
From - Odin - Wikipedia
“Old Norse texts portray Odin as one-eyed and long-bearded, frequently wielding a spear named Gungnir and wearing a cloak and a broad hat. He is often accompanied by his animal companions and familiars—the wolves Geri and Freki and the ravens Huginn and Muninn, who bring him information from all over Midgard—and rides the flying, eight-legged steed Sleipnir across the sky and into the underworld”.Obviously Odin is a Sky deity, so you have missed something in this matter".

I am wondering what exactly in this paragraph alludes to Odin being a sky deity, mythological connection to animals do not connect a god/ess to the sky or earth in Norse mythology. Sleipnir can either be considered a steed to be rode from place to place or as has been suggested by scholars as a shamanic animal; or both. Likewise, Huginn and Muninn can either be read as actual ravens or spiritual projections of Odin's mind that take the form of ravens; or both. Odin's link to ravens is also related to war, battle and death rather than anything to do with the sky. In Norse mythology Odin can best be described as a psychopomp, shaman, wanderer, god of poetry, wisdom and death.

You just missed this in my reply:
"and rides the flying, eight-legged steed Sleipnir across the sky and into the underworld”.
I understand your psychological/spiritual/shamanic interpretations and descriptions of Odin but I can´t take these seriously as Odin is just a figure in the Sky into which humans have projected all kinds of human curiosities. Despite this, I agree in a Tribal Shamanic tradition as such.

A scholarly and cultural misunderstanding? Etymology is pretty clear and Odin is not etymologically connected to *Dyeus Phater, linguistically in Old Norse that would be Tyr. The Old Norse theonym Óðinn, Old English Wóden, Old Saxon Wōden, and Old High German Wuotan derive from the Proto-Germanic theonym *wōđanaz. Óðinn is formed from the noun óðr, “ecstasy, fury, inspiration,” and the suffix -inn which approximately means 'master of'; an apt description of Odin who is considered a god of war, death, magic, poetry and wisdom.

And you never heard of Odin as All-Father?

 

[Native]

It is best not to read too much into the single late reference to Auðumbla in Snorri Sturlusson Prose Edda. Better still not to insist on cosmological associations that are not attested in Germanic mythology or in Indo-European mythology for that matter.

Well, the entire Norse story of creation MUST describe "what is created", i.e "what we humans can observe on and above the Earth", (even included Shamanistic visions) don´t you think?

Of course we then have to mention and deal with conditions on the Earth and observations in the Sky with the Sun and Moon, the planets; stars; star constellations and the whitish contours of the Milky Way - and to set all these terrestrial, astronomical and cosmological informations into the Norse story of creation.

This is what is created and known in ancestral times - as well as today. And it´s very fine working with cultural linguistic comparisons and etymological meanings in ancient myths of creation, but all these have to be connected to the very story of creation before getting any sense beyond the popular fairy tale or psychological level.

 

[Bear Wild]

In the earliest Germanic creation myth, as attested by Tacitus in Germania (98 CE), Tuisto who was born from the earth is the divine ancestor of the Germanic peoples. Through his son Mannus's three sons the tribes the Ingaevones, the Herminones, and the Istaevones got there names. Tuisto, is commonly connected to the Proto-Germanic root tvai ("two") and its derivative tvis ("twice"; "doubled"). The Germanic Tuisto (assuming a connection with Tvastr) has been theorised by a few academics as originally having been the grandfather of Ymir (cognate to Yama). Incidentally, Indian mythology also places Manu (cognate to Germanic Mannus), the Vedic progenitor of mankind, as a son of Vivaswn, thus making him the brother of Yama/Ymir.(Alexander, 2005)

Read the book by Alexander and there is interesting parallels in the religions from India to western Europe but placing Tuisto as grandfather of Ymir does not fit in with what we are presented in Norse creation myth. He also makes connections of the cow with similar myths of Iranian origin and compares the muspell with heaven and niflheim with the underworld.

Buri, who was the grandfather of Odin, Villi and Ve, was likewise licked free from the ice by Auðumbla; not created by her. A primordial cow features in Proto Indo-European myth but as with Snorri' version Auðumbla is not a creator, more like a provider of nourishment as would have been the case with cattle of the proto Indo-European and proto Germanic human populations to which these myths belong.

This mythology presents the creation of the earth, giants, gods, goddesses originating from the interaction of "fire" and "Ice" with no gender and not from a god or goddess. This is a refreshing view. Also Ymir is described as man but is essentially both male and female. From this same material come a cow that nourishes Ymir and uncovers the other giants. This seems to be a mixture of male and female aspects in the origin of our world.

The mother earth representation which the book I read was also attested by Tacitus which indicates the importance of the Female deity which is less well attested in the Norse myths we have. Crawford in one of his videos mentions this deficit. In Irish mythology you have Anu the mother goddess of all seemingly opposite to Tuisto.

I have asked this question before without an answer what could the change in votive practices from natural places often associated with the female to centralized living places which is often associated with male. I know we cannot make absolute conclusions but it seems to have been an important change and wondering what other people think.

 

[Hildeburh]

Read the book by Alexander and there is interesting parallels in the religions from India to western Europe but placing Tuisto as grandfather of Ymir does not fit in with what we are presented in Norse creation myth. He also makes connections of the cow with similar myths of Iranian origin and compares the muspell with heaven and niflheim with the underworld.

India, Iran and parts of Western Europe trace their descent from the proto Indo Europeans (PIE) so you would expect some parallels; these parallels are particularly evident in the creation myth, divine twins, the dragon/snake slaying myths and common god/esses. There are no written PIE sources so we rely on linguistic reconstruction using daughter languages, in these languages there is a basic myth of a primordial being sacrificed; usually it was a twin. In the analysis of different Indo-European myths the PIE creation myth is reconstructed as having two twin progenitors of mankind: *Manu- ("Man") and his brother *Yemo. The Germanic languages have information about both in the Old Norse creation myth it is Ymir and earlier it is Mannus (from Tacitus); these are reflexes of *Yemo and *Manu- respectively though they do not appear together in the same myth.

Creation by destruction of one of the divine twins is the cornerstone of the PIE creation myth. Divine twins associated with the creation of physical world, or humans or society are found in several myths; the Avestan Yema and Manu, Germanic Ymir and Mannus, Roman Romulus and Remus and Old English Hengest and Horsa, Emain Machae in the Old Irish Ulster Cycle. Primordial animals including cow, ox, wolf and horses are associated with primordial beings in these myths but are not in any of the myths creator beings.

The creation story in Norse mythology was recorded by Christians, details of the myth are found in the Poetic Edda which is 9th-11th century, (aspects of the creation myth found in Voluspa and Grímnismál) and Gylfaginning in the Prose Edda later still; 13th century. As with all written Germanic sources there is a great deal that has been lost, forgotten, destroyed and censured by Christians. The early Germanic myth of Tuisto predates the written sources of Norse mythology by many centuries and the connection with Ymir is based on etymology. Etymology along with linguistics, toponomy and archeology are sources that give us considerable insight into Germanic folkways.

This mythology presents the creation of the earth, giants, gods, goddesses originating from the interaction of "fire" and "Ice" with no gender and not from a god or goddess. This is a refreshing view. Also Ymir is described as man but is essentially both male and female. From this same material come a cow that nourishes Ymir and uncovers the other giants. This seems to be a mixture of male and female aspects in the origin of our world.

Creation springing from a miraculous source, such the intersection of Niflheim and Múspellheim in Ginnungagap or from earth as in the case of Tuisto or indeed from nine mothers in the case of Heimdallr is not unusual in world mythologies. Ymir was hermaphroditic, so had both male and female sex organs and/or sexual characteristics. Ymir's sexual ambiguity is in keeping with other myths in Norse mythology where the gods,in particular, took on the female form or characteristics for specific purposes. I think that the male/female dichotomy as we understand it probably did not apply to the gods.

The mother earth representation which the book I read was also attested by Tacitus which indicates the importance of the Female deity which is less well attested in the Norse myths we have. Crawford in one of his videos mentions this deficit. In Irish mythology you have Anu the mother goddess of all seemingly opposite to Tuisto.

Norse mythology is late and the myths predominantly record the deeds of the male gods, these myths were written down by Christian scribes, it was a patriarchal society, little wonder the myths of female goddesses were ignored. Nerthus, according to Tacitus was specific to a number of tribes not all of the tribes of Germania.

I have asked this question before without an answer what could the change in votive practices from natural places often associated with the female to centralized living places which is often associated with male. I know we cannot make absolute conclusions but it seems to have been an important change and wondering what other people think.

Were natural places often associated with female deities? From an archeological perspective the natural places that received the largest volume of votive offerings, over a long period of time, in Scandinavia and England seem likely linked to war gods as the offerings were of weapons and war goods. It's a difficult question to answer as evidence is slim.

 

[Native]

This mythology presents the creation of the earth, giants, gods, goddesses originating from the interaction of "fire" and "Ice" with no gender and not from a god or goddess. This is a refreshing view. Also Ymir is described as man but is essentially both male and female. From this same material come a cow that nourishes Ymir and uncovers the other giants. This seems to be a mixture of male and female aspects in the origin of our world.

As Ymir was the result of cold and hot elements coming together in the midst of Ginnungagapp, Ymir must IMO be interpreted as ONE entity created by TWO basical principles which also could be taken as female and male principles as well, referring to the Ymir attribute of being "hermaphroditic".

We have a similar “Ymir” explanation here:
“Phanes is said to have both a phallus and a vagina. Phanes was a deity of light and goodness, whose name meant "to bring light" or "to shine"; a first-born god of light who emerged from a void or a watery abyss and gives birth to the universe”.

Very much so as Ymir .

 

[Native]

Creation by destruction of one of the divine twins is the cornerstone of the PIE creation myth. Divine twins associated with the creation of physical world, or humans or society are found in several myths; the Avestan Yema and Manu, Germanic Ymir and Mannus, Roman Romulus and Remus and Old English Hengest and Horsa, Emain Machae in the Old Irish Ulster Cycle. Primordial animals including cow, ox, wolf and horses are associated with primordial beings in these myths but are not in any of the myths creator beings.

"Creation by destruction" needs another explanation than "gods and goddesses killing each other" if taken this into a modern cosmological context.

The very primeval creation goes on by transforming the prime force into several other multiple forms. It´s ALL just a creation via transformation and not destruction.

Anyway, if talking of natural mythological/cosmological principles, we can have three principles: Creation, dissolution and re-creation, the very cycle of life.

Primordial animals are just chosen and symbolized after their appearances of celestial images and our ancestors didn´t differ between human or animal deities in the creation stories.

They were/are all "creator beings", i.e. forces and forms of creation, as for instants with some Egyptian cultural prime goddesses who also were mentioned as Cow goddesses thus simply named after the imagined contours of the Milky Way on the southern hemispheres as illustrated here.

When it all comes to the point, there are no mythical beings as all archetypical symbols simply describes creative elementary forces and their appearances in the terrestrial and celestial realms.

 

[Bear Wild]

Norse mythology is late and the myths predominantly record the deeds of the male gods, these myths were written down by Christian scribes, it was a patriarchal society, little wonder the myths of female goddesses were ignored. Nerthus, according to Tacitus was specific to a number of tribes not all of the tribes of Germania.

This seems reasonable and predictable considering how much Christianity subjugated the female compared to what we know of Germanic or Celtic culture.

Were natural places often associated with female deities? From an archeological perspective the natural places that received the largest volume of votive offerings, over a long period of time, in Scandinavia and England seem likely linked to war gods as the offerings were of weapons and war goods. It's a difficult question to answer as evidence is slim.

I am more familiar with the Irish Celtic goddesses associated with natural areas. Most natural places are associated with the female deities such as land forms, rivers, springs. and other aspects. Nerthus was also associated with a sacred grove and there many bodies of water in Europe associated with female deities. I would be very interested in land features or bodies of water associated with male deities in England, Germany and Scandinavia. Not as familiar with these areas.

 

[Native]

Edit: In connection to the quote below from Wild Fox and the different interpretation, I would like to post some examples of the difficulties when interpret the ancient myths, especially the myths of creation.

Read the book by Alexander and there is interesting parallels in the religions from India to western Europe but placing Tuisto as grandfather of Ymir does not fit in with what we are presented in Norse creation myth.

Tuisto/Tvastar & Ymir:
Bad or good guy?
Connections have been proposed between the 1st century figure of Tuisto and the hermaphroditic primeval being Ymir in later Norse mythology, attested in 13th century sources, based upon etymological and functional similarity. Meyer (1907) sees the connection as so strong, that he considers the two to be identical. Lindow (2001), while mindful of the possible semantic connection between Tuisto and Ymir, notes an essential functional difference: while Ymir is portrayed as an "essentially… negative figure" – Tuisto is described as being "celebrated" (celebrant) by the early Germanic peoples in song, with Tacitus reporting nothing negative about Tuisto.
This is a nice example of cultural biased interpretations.

Familiarity or similarities?
Quote:
"Jacob (2005) attempts to establish a genealogical relationship between Tuisto and Ymir based on etymology and a comparison with (post-)Vedic Indian mythology: as Tvastr, through his daughter Saranyū and her husband Vivaswān, is said to have been the grandfather of the twins Yama and Yami, so Jacob argues that the Germanic Tuisto (assuming a connection with Tvastr) must originally have been the grandfather of Ymir (cognate to Yama). Incidentally, Indian mythology also places Manu (cognate to Germanic Mannus), the Vedic progenitor of mankind, as a son of Vivaswān, thus making him the brother of Yama/Ymir".

An example of how linguistic and etymological scholars have their focus a genealogical personalized relationship instead of on a focus on cultural deity similarities as "cosmic archetypes.

Born of the earth - living on the Earth?
"Tacitus relates that "ancient songs" (Latin carminibus antiquis) of the Germanic peoples celebrated Tuisto as "a god, born of the earth" (deum terra editum). These songs further attributed to him a son, Mannus, who in turn had three sons, the offspring of whom were referred to as Ingaevones, Herminones and Istaevones, living near the Ocean (proximi Oceano), in the interior (medii), and the remaining parts (ceteri) of the geographical region of Germania, respectively.

Was Tuisto, alias Ymir, "born of the earth" as in planet Earth and from here creating everything as said in the ancient myths? Not very likely, is it? And what about Mannus and his three sons? Did they all live in Germania on a place near the ocean?

This is an example how scholars confuse the primordial first "earth/soil/mud" in the beginning of the creation in Ginnungagap with planet Earth.

The same interpretative confusion takes place regarding Mannus and his three sons living in Germania somewhere near the Ocean. The very mythical term and symbolism of waters refers to the mythical Cosmic Ocean, quote:

"A cosmic ocean or celestial river is a mythological motif found in the mythology of many cultures and civilizations, representing the world or cosmos as enveloped by primordial waters.
In creation myths, the primordial waters are often represented as originally having filled the entire universe, being the first source of the gods cosmos with the act of creation corresponding to the establishment of an inhabitable space separate from the enveloping waters".
-----------
Now, this cosmological description fits logically both to the Tuisto and Ymir primordial common concepts and attributes as creator symbols. And to the Germanic Mannus and his sons.

The scholarly choises:
If scholars have no ideas of the mythical and cosmological symbolism, their only choice is to connect all myths to geographical watery scenarios and geographic locations.

 

[Bear Wild]

India, Iran and parts of Western Europe trace their descent from the proto Indo Europeans (PIE) so you would expect some parallels; these parallels are particularly evident in the creation myth, divine twins, the dragon/snake slaying myths and common god/esses. There are no written PIE sources so we rely on linguistic reconstruction using daughter languages, in these languages there is a basic myth of a primordial being sacrificed; usually it was a twin. In the analysis of different Indo-European myths the PIE creation myth is reconstructed as having two twin progenitors of mankind: *Manu- ("Man") and his brother *Yemo. The Germanic languages have information about both in the Old Norse creation myth it is Ymir and earlier it is Mannus (from Tacitus); these are reflexes of *Yemo and *Manu- respectively though they do not appear together in the same myth.

Accepting this also should allow us to understand Northern European pre-Christian religion by learning from the Celtic mythology preserved on the Island of Ireland along with the Norse mythology and even Welsh mythology. All were tainted by Christianity but all give us a partial view of what was a part of the pre-Christian pagan religions. It seems to me that along with what archeology we have which includes cultures prior to both Celtic and Norse influence gives a greater insight to what we understand about the religions. Thus we can get a better sense of ritual and practice.

Creation by destruction of one of the divine twins is the cornerstone of the PIE creation myth. Divine twins associated with the creation of physical world, or humans or society are found in several myths; the Avestan Yema and Manu, Germanic Ymir and Mannus, Roman Romulus and Remus and Old English Hengest and Horsa, Emain Machae in the Old Irish Ulster Cycle. Primordial animals including cow, ox, wolf and horses are associated with primordial beings in these myths but are not in any of the myths creator beings.

Although I am not familiar with the others the Emain Macha does not seem to fit the pattern as described. As for primordial animals the use of the cow it this role is associated with the feminine and present in Celtic as well as Hindu myths. As for the other animals including the boar and depending on location other animals are important to the mythology but in Norse the only one with the creator being is the cow.

 

[Bear Wild]

Edit: In connection to the quote below from Wild Fox and the different interpretation, I would like to post some examples of the difficulties when interpret the ancient myths, especially the myths of creation.

Tuisto/Tvastar & Ymir:
Bad or good guy?
Connections have been proposed between the 1st century figure of Tuisto and the hermaphroditic primeval being Ymir in later Norse mythology, attested in 13th century sources, based upon etymological and functional similarity. Meyer (1907) sees the connection as so strong, that he considers the two to be identical. Lindow (2001), while mindful of the possible semantic connection between Tuisto and Ymir, notes an essential functional difference: while Ymir is portrayed as an "essentially… negative figure" – Tuisto is described as being "celebrated" (celebrant) by the early Germanic peoples in song, with Tacitus reporting nothing negative about Tuisto.
This is a nice example of cultural biased interpretations.

Familiarity or similarities?
Quote:
"Jacob (2005) attempts to establish a genealogical relationship between Tuisto and Ymir based on etymology and a comparison with (post-)Vedic Indian mythology: as Tvastr, through his daughter Saranyū and her husband Vivaswān, is said to have been the grandfather of the twins Yama and Yami, so Jacob argues that the Germanic Tuisto (assuming a connection with Tvastr) must originally have been the grandfather of Ymir (cognate to Yama). Incidentally, Indian mythology also places Manu (cognate to Germanic Mannus), the Vedic progenitor of mankind, as a son of Vivaswān, thus making him the brother of Yama/Ymir".

An example of how linguistic and etymological scholars have their focus a genealogical personalized relationship instead of on a focus on cultural deity similarities as "cosmic archetypes.

Born of the earth - living on the Earth?
"Tacitus relates that "ancient songs" (Latin carminibus antiquis) of the Germanic peoples celebrated Tuisto as "a god, born of the earth" (deum terra editum). These songs further attributed to him a son, Mannus, who in turn had three sons, the offspring of whom were referred to as Ingaevones, Herminones and Istaevones, living near the Ocean (proximi Oceano), in the interior (medii), and the remaining parts (ceteri) of the geographical region of Germania, respectively.

Was Tuisto, alias Ymir, "born of the earth" as in planet Earth and from here creating everything as said in the ancient myths? Not very likely, is it? And what about Mannus and his three sons? Did they all live in Germania on a place near the ocean?

This is an example how scholars confuse the primordial first "earth/soil/mud" in the beginning of the creation in Ginnungagap with planet Earth.

The same interpretative confusion takes place regarding Mannus and his three sons living in Germania somewhere near the Ocean. The very mythical term and symbolism of waters refers to the mythical Cosmic Ocean, quote:

"A cosmic ocean or celestial river is a mythological motif found in the mythology of many cultures and civilizations, representing the world or cosmos as enveloped by primordial waters.
In creation myths, the primordial waters are often represented as originally having filled the entire universe, being the first source of the gods cosmos with the act of creation corresponding to the establishment of an inhabitable space separate from the enveloping waters".
-----------
Now, this cosmological description fits logically both to the Tuisto and Ymir primordial common concepts and attributes as creator symbols. And to the Germanic Mannus and his sons.

The scholarly choises:
If scholars have no ideas of the mythical and cosmological symbolism, their only choice is to connect all myths to geographical watery scenarios and geographic locations.

This places the Earth at the center of creation of Tuisto which is different than what is described for Ymir. Maybe this is just variation or corruption by Christian or Roman authors will never be known. I still see their connection more to the Earth they lived in than the Cosmos but that I my interpretation. What you present is interesting though.

 

[Bear Wild]

Were natural places often associated with female deities? From an archeological perspective the natural places that received the largest volume of votive offerings, over a long period of time, in Scandinavia and England seem likely linked to war gods as the offerings were of weapons and war goods. It's a difficult question to answer as evidence is slim.

Give how ritual behavior appears more preserved than tales of the myths the change in votive practices seems an important event. Considering the social changes that were taking place at the time one could at least consider that moving from a more tribal pattern to a more urbanizing social structure was occurring and influence the religion as well as increased contact with other cultures and influences from the Roman culture which had a major effect on religious practices across Europe.

 

[Native]

This places the Earth at the center of creation of Tuisto which is different than what is described for Ymir. Maybe this is just variation or corruption by Christian or Roman authors will never be known. I still see their connection more to the Earth they lived in than the Cosmos but that I my interpretation. What you present is interesting though.

As I said above:

If scholars have no ideas of the mythical and cosmological symbolism, their only choice is to connect all myths to geographical watery scenarios and geographic locations.

This confusion also happens in the scholarly interpretation of the Biblical Creation where the term "soil" is confused as The Earth - making the socalled "two time creation of the Earth" problem.

The mythical terms of "soil" or "mud" (or even Birds, Egg and Flower) mentioned in the ceation stories, refers specifically to the mythical context of primordial creation of the "first firm matter" and not the Earth itself.

In this sense Tuisto is in the right celestial and cosmological location (IMO in the galactic center) as well as Ymir and the described firm matter "rocky" surroundings. Scholars have simply interpreted the mythical term "soil" as being the Earth.

Again:

If scholars have no ideas of the mythical and cosmological symbolism, their only choice is to connect all myths to geographical watery scenarios and geographic locations.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Correction noted. Jörð, Hlóðynn, Fjörgyn, Fold, and Grund are all Old Norse for earth I tend to use them interchangeably.

I agree, Snorri is suspect on many levels but you got to go with what you got when discussing the genealogy of Norse gods/esses.

Sensible enough, yeah. Pursuant to the second sentence, I honestly don't know where to stand on the Eddas anymore. They're fun stories, yes, but problematic in that 1.) as you noted, they're recorded by a Christian that 1a.) didn't have a spiritual investment in the stories, and 1b.) attempted to combine various stories from the Norse peoples that differed, and 2.) writing 200 years after Scandinavia converted to Christianity, didn't fully understand the culture. As well as the instances of blatant (and overt) Christianization.

----------------------

My view's been thrown topsy-turvey, so I won't comment here on this thread much but for a couple things.

According to historian Arith Harger, in older myths there were three worlds: Asgard, Midgard, and Hel. The "Nine Worlds" are the more common enumeration from the written Eddas, but depending on which one (Poetic or Prose), there's eight, nine, or more than nine that are numbered and known. Basically the cosmology is fairly modern.

Sleipnir is Odin's horse, but it's more accurate to say that it's Odin's "horse". Horses, in a spiritual sense, were vehicles for the dead to take them to the Underworld. It is why great warriors, kings and jarls were buried with their horses, and is one of the greater "crimes" in that it's so downplayed with the Burial of Baldr. Sleipnir is not really a horse, but rather Odin's method of travel from Asgard and Midgard to the Underworld.