Talk:Seeress (Germanic)

Names and etymology

Cite needed for spaewife cognates - I did some Googling and found the identical text repeated on many sites without attribution. It isn't clear which, if any, of these might be a secondary or tertiary source (maybe they're all quaternary?), so we need a philologist with a library of Norse & OE lexicons here! D A Patriarche (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Is "seiðmaðr" (here & in section Male Practitioners) correct or should it be "seiðrmaðr"? The source that led me to look up this term used the Anglicized "seidrmadr". I realize fiction is hardly a reliable reference but it did make me wonder whether "seiðmaðr" was a typo. D A Patriarche (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked for "Spæwīfe" on the BT Anglo-Saxon dictionary and did not find it. As well, in that citation, does not even have the said word. It would be wise to call this word a reconstruction than a "attested word" until proven otherwise. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Völva/Vala redirects here

"Völva" redirects here, while "Vala" links to "völva" (mentioning that "vala" is a "spelling variant"). Therefore they both need an early and clear mention/definition in this article. Before my edit: "völva" occurs abruptly without introduction in the third paragraph. There is also not a clear introduction to the word in the Names section. The "vala" variant is not mentioned at all.

=> I took the liberty of adding to the initial paragraph:
"In Norse mythology the seeress is usually referred to as völva or vala."
(Anders Hallström) 165.1.243.180 (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Shamanism

It is to notify that the temrinus 'shaman' is originated in the Tchutchen-Siberian language, which means 'wanderer of the worlds'. Even if voelvas have partially similar methods, they cannot legitimally be called 'shamans' - because they are not following the same path.

Well, even though the Völvas did not have exactly the same rituals as their counterparts of the Tchutchen-Siberian language, the term "Shaman" is nowadays used for the archetypal role of healer-priest that has existed in most cultures. Note that "medicine men" are more and more often called "shamans". You could just as well claim that American English is not legitimately "English" as it isn't spoken in England and in exactly the same way.

The etymology of the word shaman supports the use of the term to describe Völva.

sha·man

/ˈSHämən,ˈSHāmən/

noun

noun: shaman; plural noun: shamans

a person regarded as having access to, and influence in, the world of good and evil spirits, especially among some peoples of northern Asia and North America. Typically such people enter a trance state ::during a ritual, and practice divination and healing.

synonyms: medicine man, medicine woman, healer; More

witch doctor;

peai, peaiman;

kahuna;

angekok;

pawang;

dukun

Origin

late 17th century: from German Schamane and Russian shaman, from Tungus šaman.

shaman (n.)

1690s, "priest of the Ural-Altaic peoples," probably via German Schamane, from Russian sha'man, from Tungus saman, which is perhaps from Chinese sha men "Buddhist monk," from Prakrit samaya-, from Sanskrit ::sramana-s "Buddhist ascetic" [OED]. Related: Shamanic.

Shaman

Etymology

Borrowed from German Schamane, from Russian шама́н (šamán), from Evenki шама̄н (şamān), сама̄н (samān). The Evenki word is possibly derived from the root ша- ("to know"); or else a loanword from Tocharian B ::ṣamāne (“monk”) or Chinese 沙門 (shāmén, “Buddhist monk”), from Pali samaṇa from Sanskrit श्रमण (śramaṇa, “ascetic, monk, devotee”), from श्रम (śrama, “weariness, exhaustion; labor, toil; etc.”), which would ::make this a doublet of Sramana

SvarturVölva (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Consistency

I have noticed that in one part of the article, the Volvas' wands are compared pretty convincingly with distaff tools, whilst later in the article, it says that this has no foundation and they are actually phallic symbols. Even if there is contradictory evidence, shouldn't we just point both sides out rather than contradicting ourselves? 85.158.139.99 (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It says that "all" wands cannot be associated with distaffs. Many or most can be associated with distaffs, while others cannot, so I can't see any contradition.--Berig (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is skewed somewhat against "the competing Roman Catholic Church". The most obviously POV statement is that "they were demonized", meaning that they were represented as evil. This I'll change myself; other points that imply a certain bias and merit a look from others include:

• "Since they maintained the old faith", "competing" and "they and the old faith are targeted"—the implication is that this was merely a contention between religions on the grounds of being different, and that the Catholics "demonized" their opponents. The contending view is that the "old faith" was actively evil to a Catholic perspective.
• "persecuted" (loaded term)

-- Perey 07:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A lot of these articles have this "neo-pagan" bias. even Arianism and similar. It should be enough to just quietly remove it, and add the NPOV notice only if someone reverts you. dab 08:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is that biassed. Burning people alive is a pretty strong way of persecuting them.--Wiglaf 08:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, burning people alive is a pretty strong way of killing them. Persecution is in the why, not the how. And dab, I was hoping to attract editors with a lighter touch for navigating religious POV than I. But I might give it a shot in the end. -- Perey 09:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. But AFAIK, it is uncontroversial that the old faith was demonized. The old gods Thor and Odin were called devils by the priests during the middle ages, and the quote in the text is authentic AFAIK. In fact people risked their lives by being caught red handed worshipping the old gods. Note: I am not an Asatrúar.--Wiglaf 10:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The controversy is in the idea of representation. To the old Norse mind, Christianity was a foreign religion pushing its way in and demonizing the old gods. To the Christian mind, the Norse gods were inherently false—myths, idols or demons. There was no question of demonization, only calling them what they were. -- Perey 11:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, in my mind that statement is even more POV than the article.--Wiglaf 15:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How so? If you mean the statements reflect non-neutral points of view, then yes, that was my intention. I'm trying to describe the two perspectives with respect to which the article must remain neutral. If you mean they show my personal (inaccurate?) POV on those perspectives, by all means, give us yours and we'll see what compromise can be reached. -- Perey 08:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Make a try to make it neutral, then.--Wiglaf 09:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reversion

I'm reverting the edits by 68.198.87.154 (Talk). One is just changing Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church (a redirect to the former; this user is doing this all over the place), and the other changes this sentence:

They were persecuted, slandered and killed in the course of christianization, which also brought a changed role for women in society.

The change is from course to name. Now I'm not happy with that sentence as it stands anyway, but I'll at least let it stand with 'course' in there. That way, it looks something like an NPOV statement of historical events (even if 'persecuted, slandered and killed' can't help but sound harsh), instead of a statement of the reasons for doing so ('in the name of...'). It's a subtle point, but so be it. (Incidentally, I'll capitalise and link 'Christianization' at the same time.) -- Perey 05:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

'Slandered'

I'm removing the 'slandered' from that sentence chiefly because it's rather difficult to tell what was slander and what wasn't; there's much less doubt about the persecution and killing. I'm curious about the change in women's position in society; the sentence leaves one wondering how did it change? For better, for worse, or just different? Without some kind of elaboration, the article would be better off not mentioning it. Wesley 04:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It is surprising how people object to stating that Christianity changed the way women were perceived in society. The clergy worked hard throughout history to remove women's rights. See e.g. Blenda, which was a legend created by women in 17th century Sweden to defend their rights, which the Church (of course) wanted to remove. Note that the women referred to deeds done prior to Christianity in order to defend their rights. They were conscious of the fact that their rights belonged to a pre-Christian era.--Wiglaf 07:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The "slandering" is now discussed in a section called Christianity.--Berig (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Seidman

Anyone know why Seidman redirects to here? I see no mention of that term in the body of the article. There are four articles on people with that last name, so it should probably be a disamb page, but I can't even see why this would be listed as a possible meaning. Matchups 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (friend of the non-notable Dan Seidman)

• The term 'seidman' is an Anglicism of 'seiðman' which is the male form of 'seiðkona', a synonym for Volva.85.158.139.99 (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• This page is somewhat inconsistent in the use of 'seið...' vs. the Anglicized 'seid...' but this may be an advantage in that searches on either term will link here. D A Patriarche (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A comment from a passing reader

I'd point out that the final part, about how this tradition died out, is incoherent. It blames pretty much everyone in the history of Western theology. I'm not clear, for example, how the Reformed Churches could have crushed this style of practice, given that they are a product of the Sixteenth Century, and spent most of their earlier time avoiding being hunted down by the Catholics. I can't see any connection between the witches killed under King James and this tradition at all. The author quotes "canon law under King Edgar", which seems fine until you realise that until the formation of the Church of England, the king of England has very little to do with the formation of canon (that is to say, church) law, and so this is just another attempt to spread about the blame.

I don't mind pagans mentioning the horrors of Christianistion, but perhaps they might also point out that one of the main reasons there were no practitioners of this tradition left was because very large numbers of Germans volunteered to change religions? This idea that medieval peasants were children that were tricked into Christianity by the Church has no foundation.

Question

What is rational for using the name Volva as the page namee? Normally page names should be in English. What language is "Volva" (old Norse?) and each of the other varients? This shold be stated and each language with period identified if its multilingual. Thank you. Goldenrowley 00:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Völva is a Norse concept, and shouldn't be translated. By your logic, words like ninja and samurai should also be translated. As for what a "völva" is, it's explained in the article. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks an awful lot like a word for female private parts. 68.36.120.7 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Complete Load

I tried looking up this source for this entry: "In the grave, there were also four seeds from the cannabis plant which probably had been in the pillows that supported the corpses.[13] Moreover, additional cannabis seeds were discovered in a small leather pouch.[13] Since the pouch contained too few seeds to have anything to do with the cultivation of cannabis, they were probably used for something else.[13] If the queen who had been buried in Oseberg had smoked these seeds, she would not only have sensed a feeling of weightlessness and happiness, but she would also have had a distorted experience of time and space.[13]" I don't know where this person got this information but it's completely wrong. Perhaps the seeds were supposed to represent what the plant did. However ingesting or smoking cannabis seeds wouldn't have had any effect. In fact if a person was going to try to smoke seeds, they'd find the seeds would pop or burst, not smoke! If there's a creditable reason for this being here, I'll leave it, if not I'm taking this rubbish out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgivemeanaccount (talk • contribs) 15:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that the information is properly referenced to a scholarly book. Your personal experience and knowledge may be perfectly accurate, but Wikipedia articles only rely on published sources, per WP:RS, and so we have to trust the authors referred to.--Berig (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Equations

It is dubious, possibly New Age fluff, to simply equate oracles, priestesses, shamans and witches. Do we have sources equating Völva, Seiðkona and Spákona as implied by the lead? Even if we do, Old English Wicce is clearly the odd one out still. Looking through the article, it would seem appropriate to {{split}} it into a discussion of Völva (proper), and a more general treatment of "magic and sorcery in early Germanic society". It is a completely flawed notion recurring in poorly informed neopaganism that somehow pagan priestesses "turned into witches" due to Christianization. It's not that simple. There was belief in witches (i.e. people trying to do damage by magical means) all along, throughout the pagan period, and Christianity actually combatted belief in witchcraft as pagan superstition, and a bona fide priestess would probably not have been amused to be equated with a witch. Per WP:REDFLAG, any claim lumping together priesthood, shamanism and witchcraft needs solid academic support in order to avoid WP:SYN --dab (𒁳) 14:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is little risk for WP:SYN here, since most of structure is taken from "Vikingaliv" (2007) written by a prominent historian (Dick Harrison) and an archaeologist (Svensson). It appears that you are trying to divide the subject into a "good priestess" vs "evil witch" which is in stark contrast to what scholarly literature does. Removing sourced RS information like "the Völvas were not considered to be harmless" is not going to get this article closer to mainstream scholarship.--Berig (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe the shoddy scholarship present here was actually undertaken by "prominent" historians, and that if it was, it is certainly being presented with a point of view in mind. This entire article is a real let down and certain sections reads like a Neopagan version of "the burning times" stories Wiccan circles go on about. I think the initial poster is right to ask for sources demonstrating how volva, spaekona, witches, etc. were equivalent. Also, did anyone notice how in several places the article mentions how "very likely" some of its own conclusions were? This should alarm anyone trying to defend its composition... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.159.89 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The summary of the ship burial observed by ibn Fadlan states that the slave girl was raped, whereas the refered text only says that she had went from tent to tent having sex with various men. As she agreed to the rite and her own death and she then voluntarily acted as a Volva, the voluntary nature of sex is credible. The strange sexual rites of distant people may disturb modern readers but that does not make them rape.JDN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.174.236 (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Harrison & Svensson source does not impress me based on the statements cited to it here. This article needs to be rewritten using more of the specialised sources including those which are not so sensationalistic. It will be a big task, but it does need to be done. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of vandalism

I noticed a lack of vandalism of the main article, which surprised me, due to the term's similarity to that for a certain part of the female anatomy and the similarity to a certain car brand's name. I guess the word "volva" isn't that famous. Otherwise, some folks would've been all over it. 198.151.130.51 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

References

D A Patriarche (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Rettilbeine = Boner? Nope.

Hi,

"straight member" for "Rettilbein" is a mistranslation. "Straight-limbed" might possibly be passable, but the literal translation is Straight-Bone, with "bein" also being the word for "leg", i.e. Straight-Leg.

T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Early accounts"

There is nothing demonstrating that the accounts of witches, prophetesses and priestesses among various early Germanic peoples as given in the "early accounts" section represent something specifically like the Norse vǫlur. Witches, prophetesses, priestesses, shamans and the like existed in many cultures. What makes these intrinsically linked as some sort of precursors to the vǫlur, other than the fact that they presumably spoke Germanic languages? The link seems altogether anachronistic as it is given here, we're talking about a separation of over half a millennium in the case of the haliurunnas and even more in the other cases: assuming these represent some ur-Germanic archetype of a vǫlva seems a bit much. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 20:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently preparing a rewrite for this topic under the new title "Seeress (Germanic)". It should resolve these issues. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed early accounts completely because it was not appropriate. It is however important to leave Völva as a unique page due to the fact that being a seer is only one aspect of being Völva. Essentially the removal of the page is invalidating to the people for which it is named. I am willing to take Völva over and will be attempting to update with new information and sources in time. I am asking that you please respect the need for a unique page and be patient with me while I gather new material and sources. SvarturVölva (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This is incorrect: As essentially every relevant reference used in this article states, the Old Norse noun völva is a synonym for various other terms of a seeress among the North Germanic peoples. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite launched

I've prepared a rewrite of this article, which is now live. I rewrote the article for the following reasons:

• North Germanic focus': The previous version of the article focused on the North Germanic record to the detriment of the broader picture. I've expanded the non-North Germanic record considerably here, and built a new framework for easier expansion on this topic.
• Synthesis and POV: A significant percentage of the previous article contained original research and synthesis. The new article is now fully referenced to modern reliable sources.
• Theory as fact': The previous version of this article presented theory as fact. The new article avoids this problem by separating scholarly reception from the facts of the corpus.

I'll be expanding this and related articles as time permits. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Moved from Völva

I note that as part of their rewrite covered in the section above, Bloodofox moved this article from its original title, Völva. While I don't doubt that the rewrite was beneficial in making the article more neutral and separating supposition from fact, the material on vǫlur and their relationship to spækonar is fundamentally Norse and I believe justifies a separate völva page with the material on Veleda and on what possibly may have gone on outside the Old Norse-speaking areas, with their distinct textual basis, more usefully discussed at the Seeress (Germanic) title. I suggested SvarturVölva start this section, since they have been editing the redirect created by the move in order to establish a separate article, so since they didn't do so, I'm instead pinging them here. I think this should be discussed separately from the rewrite itself. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

SvarturVölva (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for making death threats. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Not just any type of death threat, but death curse threats. And copyright-violations.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Coming back here after reacting to the block (which is probably well deserved, and I am sorry you had to go through that, Bloodofox; using "Svartur" in front of the word doesn't excuse that). But I believe the accusation of copyright violation is overblown; the user appears to have restored the pre-improvement version of the article at the old title, as here, without clear attribution, which is a copyright violation, but only within Wikipedia itself. The Wikia page now cited at the request for history blanking derives from us.

My point still stands, I think the move should be discussed and separation of the articles considered. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you referring to material that is no longer presented here? I can't find anything about it in the current article. I'm inclined to support keeping everything here though.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

My problem with separating the articles is that scholarship on the topic invariably discusses these figures from a comparative perspective, and I see no reason to use the form "völva" over the various other names for seeresses in the Old Norse corpus. It seems to be widely accepted that seeresses were an element of Germanic society at least up until Christianization. In my opinion, it's simply confusing for readers to split off the North Germanic stuff from the continental Germanic stuff unless we have a lot more material on the North Germanic stuff that warrants it, wherein we'd still need to discuss how it connects to all of the Roman Era material here. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

There's been work in Scandinavia, for one thing, relating archaeological finds to the mentions of staffs. Things are complicated around the relationship between galdr (which also uses staffs), spá/spæ (working on the links in the "terminology" section showed me that we have some very poorly developed articles; I note with raised eyebrow that we have Runic magic but not Germanic magic or even the term that might get more searches, Norse magic) and the vǫlur, but there is indeed also scholarly discussion of shamanism in this context. From the Old Norse sources and the scholarship, I'm not even entirely sure vǫlva is best equated to "seeress"; that fits spækona better, but as scholars have noted, the terminology in prose sources such as The Saga of Eric the Red vacillates and indicates use of both terms to mean "practitioner of black magic". I don't pretend to be an expert on Germanic magic; but I do think there's a valid case for saying a lot more about vǫlur, including their possible role as magic workers rather than mere seers (and the gender opposition with galdr-workers). And I would personally create an overarching magic article, although so much of it would be Norse it might better simply be titled that way! An evil thought: make runic magic merely a section within that. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Just as a side note, most mentions of the seeresses do seem mention them in the context of providing foresight, such as, of course, Völuspá. That said, this article is just a foundation from which to build. The old one was a mess for the issues I outline above, but so are most related articles, as you highlight. Most of them just need to be reconsidered and rewritten from scratch. The same, unfortunately, goes for our norn and dísir articles—yikes. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Old Norse material would completely drown out other Germanic material in a magic article. We have the Merseburg charms, for one thing, and I'm pretty sure there's material from Anglo-Saxon England concerning Elves among other things. There's actually a proposal to split some material off the Merseburg charms article that's relevant to this discussion.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Related to the move and the redirect from "völva", see my comment in the Names section here on the Talk page. (Sorry for not producing a wikilink to it...) (Anders Hallström) 165.1.243.180 (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Þorbjörg Lítilvölva into Seeress (Germanic). I think that the content in the Þorbjörg Lítilvölva article can easily be explained in the context of Seeress (Germanic), and the Germanic Seeresses article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Þorbjörg Lítilvölva will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. PepperBeast (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The other article is a one sentence stub and I don't see much chance for expansion.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's a large amount of possible expansion here. The same can be said about most other seeresses in the historic record. Many of them have been subject to significant discussion and analysis. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• oppose - if anything, merge with Saga of Erik the Red, but see the german and spanish articles for expansion potential. k kisses 00:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - If you look at the other language versions of this article, they are much larger, so there is a great expansion potential. --Aciram (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons put furth by Bloodofox. Krakkos (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Closing, given the consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

WOW!!!

I just realized that I started this article on February 19, 2004, when I was a Ph.D. student.--Berig (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Time sure flies, doesn't it? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. WP has changed so much since those days.--Berig (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Scope

I am reading The Viking Way by Neil Price (archaeologist) and he points out something that has concerned me since this article was moved from Völva to Seeress. The roles of "prophetess" and "magic worker" don't appear to have been separate occupations, but performed by the same people. I don't know how to fix this, though, since the term prophetess seems intrenched in this topic, while sorceress might be a more correct term. Also, other concepts that may be relevant to discuss here are pagan priestess, witch, wise women and shaman.--Berig (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to go ahead and list the various ways in which the terms are translated into English by, say, every translator of the Poetic Edda, the Prose Edda, etc, in a dedicated section. This is not too difficult a task (for English language editions at least) now that there's Eddic to English and Edda to English. This would be really handy for researchers and readers alike.

Would you be interested in collaborating on this expansion, Berig? I think we should build out all the völva articles and go from there. I think a lot of readers would be interested in reading about all the attestations for each seeress from the Old Norse corpus—it's a fascinating topic. I'm thinking we should keep the general discussion here under a "scholarly reception" section, including general commentary from Price and others, and split off commentary on specific seeresses out to each of the sub-articles. (It would be really great to one day get this to a featured-quality article, too.) :bloodofox: (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I only have Price's book as an e-book and can't quote from it. I will need to buy it in paper form first. Also real life concerns stop me from committing to an article right now. However, in the long run, I will help out :-).--Berig (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bloodofox:, I finally have a printed copy of Price's book. It contains a lot of updated material on the Völur and Viking age shamanism/magic practices, written by an archaeologist with one of the most coveted tenures in Scandinavian archaeology. He is a full professor of archaeology at Uppsala University, and he has a lot of other chairs internationally[1]. There are few more updated and authoritative sources with more coverage than this book. I am a bit busy IRL, but I will start improving these articles now, more in earnest.--Berig (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bloodofox:, if you're still interested in collaboration, we can begin.--Berig (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Berig:, I'm definitely still interested. I just need to slate some time for it. I've got a few books by Price, including his most recent (Children of Ash and Elm, which unfortunately I'd advise using with caution). I'll begin compiling different English translations for völva and related terms here soon. That'll be very useful for us moving forward. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I also have Children of Ash and Elm, but I don't think I will use it. The Viking Way is by far a superior book for this purpose and it also covers other scholarship. We are not in a hurry, and I just intend to get some progress done every weekend. A lot may spill over to other articles--Berig (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bloodofox:, even if you don't find time between more pressing, and naturally more important, real life commitments, I'd appreciate if you cast your critical eyes over the article from time to time. I plan to see if I can get this article to GA or even possibly to FA status. Also, @Yngvadottir:, @Ermenrich:, @Carlstak:, @Pfold:, @Obenritter:, @Alcaios:, @Austronesier:, @Krakkos:, @Haukurth:, @Ealdgyth:, @Srnec: and other trusted editors are naturally also welcome to give constructive feedback to what I do.--Berig (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Berig:, that sounds great. I'll have more time to contribute here soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, thanks. There is still lots of work to do on it.--Berig (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Chanting

If anyone is curious about how their chanting sounded, Price writes that it was probably equivalent to the traditional Swedish herd-calling. This makes sense as the Völva's chanting was a high-pitched call for summoning spirits, and it had a pleasing sound. Maybe I can integrate this into the article later.--Berig (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow. That stirs something primeval. Carlstak (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It is powerful, and it is easy to agree with Price when you listen to it.--Berig (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Chanting vs Germanic seeress chanting vs herd-calling

I see some "integrity problems" with the wikilinks back and forth here. In general I think links between articles should run both ways when the subjects are sufficiently related. Two problems:

1) The subsection about chanting begins with "Further information: Chant#Chant_as_a_spiritual_practice", but the linked article fails to mention the variant German seeress chanting and thus there is no link back. Inconsistency, and no "further information" was offered from the Germanic point of view. (Please do not remove the link though, the link to the more general concept of chanting is still a good thing to have.)

2) Price writes... the interesting comparison to herd-calling, giving the impression that herd-calling might be a modern remnant of ancient spiritual chanting. However the linked article on herd-calling ("Kulning") denies any connection between herd-calling and religious chanting, and consequently does not offer a link back to Germanic seeress chanting, which I think is unfortunate and somewhat contradictory. Besides, the reference to "Swedish herd-calling" seems to be too narrow: according to the linked article it is a Scandinavian tradition (occurring in Norway, Sweden, Finland).

(Anders Hallström) 165.1.243.180 (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback: Schleswig Cathedral Depiction, segregating sources from reception, and Frigg and Freyja common origin hypothesis

Some quick and where we're at right now:

• Woman on broom image: I am very suspicious of this Schleswig Cathedral depiction. I understand that churches in the region were subject to waves of very dubious 'restorations' that have introduced things such as turkeys to church walls. Before we go with this admittedly very interesting depiction (and the image of the woman with a cloak riding a cat often paired with this image is particularly interesting), I think it would be wise for us to do some deeper research here. The ramifications of such depictions, if they do indeed date back to beyond the last several hundred years, are pretty significant.
• Separating commentary from sources: I recommend that we be as careful as possible to segregate the historic attestations from scholarly commentary and to, wherever possible, place multiple translations next to one another. Transparency with sources is super useful to readers. Plus, there's a tremendous amount of discussion we can add about just about any attestations of a seeress from the historic record, and the easier we make it to just plug this stuff in the better. This is one of the reasons I've opposed merging the individual seeress articles into this article.
• The Frigg-Freyja common origin hypothesis: Currently we go into this with some depth, but the topic is pretty complex, and touches on the influnece of Great Goddess Theory and a continued tendency among some scholars to view various goddesses as 'hypostases' of a single quasi-monotheistic goddess figure. I think this complicated discussion should be handled over at Frigg and Freyja common origin hypothesis and shouldn't be something we get into in any depth here. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me say that I'm only beginning to learn about the subject, but I see that the description page of the image says this:

"Woman on broomstick, bad picture of a mural in Schleswig "Dom" with completely false inscription. For a scholarly discussion about the date (around 1450??) see (in German) http://www.listserv.dfn.de/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0301&L=hexenforschung&P=R57&I=-3" [dead link]

"Please avoid using this picture You can find correct photographs of the Schleswig paintings with German comment at http://www.geschichte.schleswig-holstein.de/vonabisz/hexen.htm" [dead link]

The caption says it's by Nigel Pennick, which might cast doubt on its historicity, given that he's a marine biologist. Carlstak (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, they're a real head-scratcher. I am by no means an expert regarding these church depictions, but I've seen these images mentioned as potentially depicting Frigg and Freyja before beyond Pennick. I have yet to have a chance to visit the cathedral, unfortunately. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Broom image

Yes, I don't believe for a second that it is Frigg, but I think it is a nice illustration of one of the semantic extensions of the gandreið. There is a lot that speaks for continuity between the perception of the seeresses and the perception of the medieval witches, in the Germanic speaking countries, and I hope to find more scholary literature on this later for a final section.--Berig (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I am really interested in these two depictions and would love to see more discussion about them. For example, if they are indeed a recent addition, this would warrant an article discussing them, IMO, or at least a section. Anyone want to look further into this? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Me too. I would really like us to have two good quality images of them.--Berig (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Schleswig Cathedral fresco of woman on besom

Well, gentlemen, I've uploaded to Wikimedia Commons what appears to be an actual photo of the fresco at the Schleswig Cathedral of the naked woman riding a besom. I am aware of the irony in my using an image from Heidnisches Europa: Geschichte, Kult & Wiederbelebung by Nigel Pennick and Prudence Jones.;-) I don't know if this would be useful. Charles Zika says it possibly represents Artemis / Diana leading the Wild Ride, most likely dating from the late 15th to early 16th centuries. Carlstak (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I took the liberty of cropping the picture so the motif will be easier to see.--Berig (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Glad you could use it. Carlstak (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I like including artwork that is close in time to the period the article discusses. Although, there may be doubts about whether this is a true mediaeval artwork or a later emendation, it at least has the style of an authentic mediaeval picture, and may very well be :-).--Berig (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but to my eye it appears that it may have been reworked, or it least recolored, at some point in its history, which would imply that the original work could actually date to medieval times. The style is not anachronistic to that period. Carlstak (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

This summer, I took an American friend to Vendel and Birka, and we also visited some mediaeval churches to admire the paintings inside. Luckily, unlike in England, they did not destroy the paintings inside the churches during the Reformation, where I live. It looks perfectly like the mediaeval church paintings in style, see Albertus Pictor.--Berig (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I can certainly see the resemblance to the colored line art of Pictor's painting Dancing peasants, especially in his depiction of the peasants' eyes and other facial features. Carlstak (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup! I found a reference in Mitchell's book. Here we have a Harvard professor, who writes that the traditions of these women survived and evolved during the Middle Ages. There are people who sneer at neo-pagans who claim that the burning of women at the stakes was an attempt to end an old continuous tradition, but this may very well have been the case.--Berig (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Using the book by Katherine Morris that is authoritative enough to be quoted by Neil Price, it appears that these neo-pagans are right. The church declared this tradition to be a heresy, so yes, we have WP:RS that the ecclesiastical elite effectively proclaimed genocide on the practitioners of this tradition. It becomes heavier and heavier to write this article.--Berig (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for. I wasn't raised Catholic, but grew up in a very Catholic town. Once a nun told me, "We'll pray for you if you pray for us." I thought that nicely summed up the always transactional nature of the institution. The Inquisition would have burned me at the stake most certainly, and still survives as the Holy Office. Watch out witches and shamans.;-) Carlstak (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Luckily there is a great deal of WP:RS to use in this article, written by tenured professors at respectable institutions. Looking at this talkpage, there is no lack of attitudes towards the topic. I am trying to write this article to please everyone, but I may end up pleasing no one. Even if it'll never reach GA status, let alone FA status, some good may come from my work here, like GA:d spin-off articles.--Berig (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think it matters one whit who the article pleases or displeases—it's of high quality. I've never submitted an article I've written, or one that I wrote most of, for GA or FA review, fearing that the article might be changed in unwelcome ways by people who don't really know much about the subject.;-)

I was wondering whether the word fetch, from Irish folklore, and used in the sentence "In the Westrogothic law , it was a punishable offence to accuse a woman of having ridden a fence-gate, in the fetch of a troll", might better be replaced with the word Fylgja from Norse mythology. Carlstak (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Fetch is my translation of the Scandinavian word hamr, and the original Old Swedish text says i trols ham, which Strömbäck translates as "in the shape of a troll". It may be an incorrect translation.--Berig (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be clear in the sources (but I will look at it again) whether such magical appearances of witches were always themselves physically or whether they were (astral) projections of them. Well, thanks for pointing out the mistranslation.--Berig (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

I am trying to keep a balance between coverage and size, and I think the primary sources would simply be too massive to include with translations. Although, I usually agree with the approach you are mentioning Bloodofox, I think this article is better served by going into secondary sources, and having the primary sources and the translations in the specific articles on the individual seeresses. The reason why I made Gambara (Lombard) into a redirect is because it was hardly a stub and in its present state it served the readers best as a redirect. Later, I (or someone else) may expand it with primary source quotations and translations.--Berig (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Frigg and Freyja common origin hypothesis

On second thought Bloodofox, I will merge the content into the article, and refer to it, as you suggested.--Berig (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)