Talk:Kjárr/Archive 1

.

Amazing, if true. Absolutely amazing.--Filll 15:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So true and amazing that it is at the same time easy and necessary to add references ;-).--Berig 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hollander's 1962 translation of the Poetic Edda has this footnote for the Volundarkvi∂a:

...Kíar may correspond to Kiarval [Cearbhall] of Valland (here meaning "Wales"); or, possibly, it may be derived from Caesar.

It doesn't sound like "general agreement" that Kjárr = Caesar...

—Abou 07:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This dissertation from 1999 is probably a more reliable source: Kíarr/Kjárr is generally recognised to stem from Latin Caesar, though how this word arrived in NG is unclear. The translator Hollander has his own theory, while Anderson just sums up the academic research. Frankly, who is more likely to be mentioned in heroic poetry about Goths and Huns, the Roman Emperor or an otherwise obscure Welshman?--Berig 07:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I've read that same dissertation before, but missed the Kíarr reference. But the author does mention the possibility of a Celtic derivation, calling it "perhaps less likely". (I'm not convinced either way; personally, I'd argue for an identification with Goar/Eochar.) —Abou 08:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he mentions in a footnote that the Old Irish Cíar meaning "brown" has been suggested. It appears that the generally accepted theory is a derivation from Caesar, with one author suggesting Cíar as a possibility and a translator suggesting Kiarval. IMHO, these two alternative theories would only warrant a footnote.--Berig 08:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have two authors, each of whom mentions both theories, but gives more prominence to one or the other. I'm inclined to favor Anderson as the more recent work, although I'd feel more confident if we had a third source. Anderson cites a 1989 work by Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon for the Celtic theory (so it must still be somewhat current); for the derivation from Caesar he cites "ANEW", which I couldn't find in his bibliography. Any idea what he's referring to? —Abou 09:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I have no idea. I tend to trust dissertations, since they are usually scrutinized by more people than ordinary publications.--Berig 18:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good article, but since different scholars have different conclusions I can see no reason for saying that two of the three alternatives "would only warrant a footnote". If there are different theories in existance, the theories should be presented. I myself consider the Ceasar theory the most likely, but that's not important here.Dusis 20:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but all theories are not equal. There are those that are generally accepted and those that are not.--Berig 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have one source for each theory, that's pretty much equal. Berig, you have a tendency in all articles you contribute to, that is to think that it is up to you alone to decide what version should be used if there are conflicting versions. It's not. If you want to start a page with your theories and the theories you like, feel free to do so. On Wikipedia, keep in mind that the task here is to report as unbiased as possible. As it happens, I share your belief that the Ceasar theory is the most probable - and the most interesting as well - but my personal evaluation of the different theories is of just as little importance as yours.Dusis 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change other people's posts, and do not change statements that are referenced.--Berig 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not intentionally changed anyone's post. If to users post at the same time, I suspect that may happen, at least I've experienced the same thing. And once again, your desire to mention just one theory of three and ignore the others is original research, no matter that you have a source to use.Dusis 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You alter information that is referenced and that is not allowed. That is lying.--Berig 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be fond of false accusations. Perhaps you would show what statement I'm changing? That one source says that its own theory is generally accepted is not even close to being far enough for us to accept that when we know that there are other theories in existance. Especially not as this source admits that there are other theories. Mentioning the simple truth that there are three different theories when that's the fact is the non-biased thing to do, not to accept one theory and reject the others as you are doing.Dusis 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what your problem is. The text referred to says "Kíarr/Kjárr is generally recognised to stem from Latin Caesar, though how this word arrived in NG is unclear. This is referenced and you try to make the three theories out to be equally notable.--Berig 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"My" problem is that you think yourself fit to decide which sources to trust and which to credit. According to that particular source, Kjárr stems from Caesar. According to others, it does not. If it really is generally recognised that Caesar version is the correct one, then I'm sure there are other sources that say the same thing. Please refer to some of them instead of just this one and only source.Dusis 20:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting this wrong. You are altering a referenced text, trying to make three theories out to be equally notable. This is not proper procedure. If you think the two other theories are worthy of inclusion, add them and refer your sources.--Berig 20:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why would the sources not be equally notable? As I already said, if something is "generally recognised" I'm sure you can find more than one source, especially when even that source mentions another theory.Dusis 20:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm not sure from where it is derived, kjarr is an Icelandic word for thicket and it would seem that this is the most obvious choice for the etymology of the word. If this seems strange for a title, remember that Marquess breaks down etymologically into "border-grove", so there is a precidence for titles being interchangeable with geographic locations in this way.Lars951 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Julius Caesar in particular?

Since this is a fairly tenuous reconstruction, I'm wondering if there is any evidence that Kjarr actually refers specifically to Julius Caesar and not, in a generic sense, to "Caesar" and thus to the Roman Emperor generally. This seems particularly more likely since Kjarr is seen as a contemporary to the Huns. --Jfruh (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When these traditions were written down in the 13th century, the poems and the tales had been orally transmitted for about a millenium and when Proto-Norse turned into Old Norse in the 8th century, every single heroic poem had to be recomposed because the words had become shorter and the meter was messed up. The people of the Sigurd tradition which are probably loosely based on real people during the 5th and the 6th centuries appear together with 8th century people in Scandinavian legends. In other terms, expect the chronology to be pretty vague.--Berig 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, the Atlamál seems to place Attila the Hun in Greenland with a huge army of thirty men. Nyttend 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am impressed with the sagas every time they get things right, as I am with Hervarar saga which places the war between the Goths and the Huns in the region of the Carpathians, Dniepr and the Danube. That is a pretty accurate oral transmission throughout a millienium. It also mentions that the Goths bragged that they did not fear the Hun bow.--Berig 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This still does not answer my question. Is there any evidence linking the name Kjarr to Julius Caesar in particular, rather than to a Roman ruler named "Caesar" of indeterminate date? Because if there is no particular evidence relating Kjarr to Julius Caesar specifically, I question why it is asserted that he is the Caesar in question here. If you aren't Roman specialists, I can assure you that you can reasonably expect just about any Roman emperor to have been referred to as Caesar by somebody. --Jfruh (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

m:The Wrong Version is now protected. Come back to the admins when you've sorted out these issues. Circeus 03:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor I have to ask: how do you think this action is going to resolve the source dispute? Compared to many *real* content disputes, this is barely a hiccup, and your protection of the page has been perceived by some as rather partisan. Wouldn't an RfC or some real structured discussion or mediation on the talk page be more constructive? - WeniWidiWiki 09:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The "come back to the admins" attitude doesn't help either. The idea behind protecting an article is to force people to the negotiation table but it doesn't really work very well. This is especially true when the version which gets protected is simply the one preferred by one (group of) editors, leaving that party with no incentive to negotiate and the other party feeling marginalized. Haukur 09:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is simply that edit wars are harmful to the encyclopedia. I don't care for what the article should say, right now. But I do care what the user should do, and warring is not an option. Circeus 19:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no war, there's just a bit of squabble over some details - and it will be much easier to work through them with editing enabled. Please lift the protection. Haukur 20:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Haukur, especially since the words attributed by a ref tag needs to be corrected urgently. Someone has inserted various theories into the referenced text, making it appear as if the source is supporting all of them. The practice of changing text that is attributed to a particular source needs to stop because it misrepresents the scholars involved and makes a mockery of the entire process of supplying references and attribution. It is just as misleading as falsification of actual quotes and makes Wikipedia appear totally unreliable. Pia 22:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the specific justifications and lengths of this protection, out of curiosity? There seems to be little "warring" as per the history of the entry. - WeniWidiWiki 20:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. protection was premature, this isn't a "dispute" so much as a hiccup, and protection was imposed before people had a chance to even chime in. dab (𒁳) 13:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call Circeus a "rogue admin", but it seems suspicious that he so hastily protected the version of a fellow French-Candian.--Berig 17:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

Íslensk orðsifjabók

All right, I'll see what I can find in my library. I have the 1989 work by Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon, assuming his etymological dictionary is what is meant. The entry for Kíarr, Kjár(r) is, in its entirety:

k. karlmannsnafn (í Eddukv.); sagnkonungsheiti. Uppruni óljós, afbökun eða ummyndun e-s erlends heitis, e.t.v. úr Caesar eða komið úr fír. cíar 'brúnn'.

I'll try to translate that to English:

masculine, a man's name (in the Eddic poems); the name of a legendary king. Origin unclear, a malformed or mutated form of some foreign name, possibly from Caesar or from Old Irish cíar, 'brown'.

Haukur 10:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dronke's translation of Atlakviða

Dronke, Ursula (1997). The Poetic Edda : Volume I : Heroic Poems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Note that this is an academic translation, rather than a popular one (and it costs like woah). On p. 4 Dronke translates the Atlakviða lines "hiálm ok skiöld hvítastan kominn ór höll Kiárs" as "my helmet and shield the brightest, brought from the Emperor's hall". On page 52 she comments:

Kiárr is probably a development of Lat Caesar in the popular pronunciation [käzar], for which there is evidence from the first century A.D.: [käzar] > [käRar] > by metathesis [käarr] > by dissimilation and development of a rising diphthong kiárr (cf. *izern > *iiiRern > *ierrn > iárn). The ON form keisari is borrowed from German (OHG keisur, Gothic kaisar), based on the diphthongal pronunciation of Caesar maintained among educated Romans into the third century. The title 'Cæsar' was used of emperors of Constantinople and of Rome by the Germanic peoples (cf. Widsið 20: Casere weold Creacum). Cf. S. Feist Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache (3rd ed.) s.v. kaisar.

Haukur 10:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gísli Sigurðsson's edition of Atlakviða

Gísli Sigurðsson (1998). Eddukvæði. Mál og menning. Reykjavík. ISBN 9979-3-1661-6

This is a popular, semi-academic edition. On p. 318 is this comment: "Kjár er nefndur í Heiðreks sögu sem konungur á Vallandi (Frakkland). Orðið er forngermönsk útgáfa af ,Caesar'." In my translation: "Kjár is mentioned in Heiðreks saga as king of Valland (France). The word is an old Germanic version of 'Caesar'." Haukur 10:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larrington's translation of Atlakviða

The Poetic Edda. Trans. with an introd. and notes by Carolyne Larrington. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 0192839462.

This is a popular translation (derided for its inaccuracies). On p. 211 the lines are translated as "the brightest shield and helmet come from the emperor's hall" with no note that I can find. Haukur 10:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cassell's Dictionary of Norse Myth and Legend

Entry for Kjár: "According to the eddic poem VÖLUNDARKVIDA, the father, from Valland, of the swan-maiden ÖLRÚN. Elsewhere in the POETIC EDDA, in ATLAKVIDA, the hero GUNNAR boasts of having 'the brightest helmets and shields, brought from Kjár's hall', although here, as in Völundarkvida, the name may be no more than a title, as it appears attached to a number of legendary kings. Haukur 10:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cearbhall of Valland

(Hollander, 1962) is rather vague. I assume we're to read that Kjar fra Valland is "Cearbhall of Wales". That seems rather unlikely for all manner of reasons, anthroponymic ones first and foremost, followed by the fact that one very well-known known Cerbaill/Cearbhall ended up as Kjarvalr rather than Kjar. Dusis added this only the day before yesterday, so an explanation would be very nice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, saying "Magnússon 1989, Hollander 1962" (without any corresponding entries in the bibliography!) is not "referencing". It turns out that "Magnússon 1989" is an etymological dictionary that presents an alternative possibility in passing, without building a case. This isn't an editing dispute, it is squabbling over details, and the burden still lies with the editor trying to create the impression that there are several interpretations competing on equal grounds. dab (𒁳) 13:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy Research

Interesting article, thanks to Abou and Dusis for showing that academic research is not about thinking that the world is all black and white and that there can only be one accepted truth. It is surprising that some people are so quick to accept one theory without almost any proof. We know for sure that there are different theories about the name Kjárr, yet some editors claim that there is "general agreement". All they can base this claim on is a sloppy note in a thesis that, frankly, could have been better. As anyone with any experience of academics could tell, writing a sentence such as "there is general agreement that X" without providing a single source is not considered good academic writing. dab points out that the entris in Magnússon and Hollander (I've read neither) are short and made in passing. So is the entry in Edlund. So the question remains, based on what do some editors think that Edlund's brief note, without any reference to his claim, is so much more reliable than other sources that the others sources should be ignored here, or just refered to as fringe theories. The latter is not only questionable, it is downright dishonest. JdeJ 14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: JdeJ has interesting ideas about reliable sources, since he replaced information from several authoritative encyclopedias with information from a personal site in Örebro.--Berig 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid point. That one user has used sources in the wrong way does not justify others doing the same thing. I took the same position as JdeJ in the discussions but I agree with Berig that the particular edit was wrong. Here, I agree with JdeJ that the phrase in Edlund's thesis is not very good. As I have previously stated, I share Berigs view that Caesar is the most likely source for Kjarr, but I would want to have it better sourced than just one source mentioning it without offering any other source. As the author of the thesis has his own web page, perhaps it would be possible to write him directly and ask about the sources he (hopefully) relied on but did not reference. Then we could put all this behind us and move on.Dusis 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JdeJ, building a solid foundation for an article means being faithful to your sources first and foremost. Sorry, there is nothing sloppy about Berig's and Haukur's prepatory research here. After having encountered many of the above posters' work on Wikipedia in similar subjects, I know for a fact their attention to verification is not aimed at preventing further development of articles, nor attempts to present in black and white as implied here. As you can see if you look above your own post, Haukur has gone through the trouble of presenting various scholars' attempts at establishing an etymology for Kjárr, which I'm sure will eventually be integrated into the article, and if you check the article itself, you'll see that the reverts developed only when Berig tried to protect the integrity of the article's major source. Also: Calling Edlund and the above sources "dubious" will require that you present some alternative research in more detail. Please also note that participation in articles requires effort: The article participants who have yet to present some library footwork are the one who tagged the scholar in the article as "dubious" and the one who previously inserted two parentheses into the text without sharing his/her knowledge of the content in these sources and without making an entry in the reference section. Without proper back-up in scholarly texts and further developed arguments, what is pushed here as "alternative truths" do not appear to be that "alternative" at all. The "theories" referred to are only presented as secondary possibilities to a generally shared idea, which appears to be expressed by most of the authors in question. When there are alternative, clashing theories (which I would argue generally means developed, researched ideas or hypotheses presented in peer-reviewed publications and not just vague and brief notes of possible alternatives to the view considered "general", that is, the one favored in popular as well as scholarly translations as the most likely, and presented as such in footnotes of the translated Old Norse text), these theories definitely need to be presented properly. As is generally the case in questions of etymology, theories presented by historians, linguists and archeologists will vary over time and according to various nationalist ideologies, almost without exception, but that doesn't mean that the most current ideas are "dubious" or that they necessarily have to clash with a shared notion (a general idea), developed over time. Pia 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Pia makes several good points, but there are some things I would like to comment. I don't think anybody has accused Haukur of anything, all I can see is that he has made valuable contributions on this talk page. What Pia says about new theories often replacing old theories over time is of course completely true and if that is the case here, we should not bother too much about older theories. The only problem, and I keep coming back to this, is that we don't have much evidence for the Caesar theory having replaced other theories. From experience, I know that the average dissertation is read by about ten persons. If Edlund would only mention some source for his claim that the theory presents is accepted by most academics, there would be no problem - but he never does. As I said already last week, if it really is so widely accepted it should not be so hard to find a source for it. For now, all we have are some different theories of which I tend to trust the one about Caesar but based on what we know, I feel it is wrong to completely ignore other theories. Another problem, as discussed below, is there anything to suggest that Caesar is in fact Julius Caesar and not the title? Dusis 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the source for the claim that Edlund is the only scholar who has forwarded the Ceasar idea? To me, he appears to be only the latest in a row of scholars presenting variations on that idea---see for example Haugur's sources above: Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon ("e.t.v. úr Caesar") Ursula Dronke ("Kiárr is probably a development of Lat Caesar"), Gísli Sigurðsson ("The word is an old Germanic version of 'Caesar'"). Early scholars who have discussed the etymology of Kiarr, which I haven't checked in detail yet, are Kemp Malone (1950s), van Hamel, A. Holtzman (late 1800s) and Bugge. Pia 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pia makes a strong argument here. It seems like most scholars support the Caesar theory. My suggestion is that the article is written in such a way that it is made clear that the Caesar theory is the dominating, but that a brief mentioning is made of the other theories as well and without using patronising terms like "fringe theories". Perhaps it would also be wisest to focus and Caesar, and not Julius Caesar. The way the article was written at first made it seem sure that it was the person Julius Caesar and not the title that was the origin for the name Kjárr. So these are my suggestions. I don't make any edits for now but await the comments from others. It feels like we are getting close to a general agreement here. Thanks to Pia and Haugur for excellent "offline" work with the sources. JdeJ 00:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why Julius Caesar

I apologize for repeatedly butting into what appears to be a very interesting discussion of specialists, but since nobody seems to have answered my question directly earlier, I am re-posing it here: What, if anything, connects Kjarr with Julius Caesar rather than just the title Caesar, which can refer to any Roman emperor? Perhaps my questions are misguided -- I see now that the article lede reads that the name is a "reflection of Julius Caesar and the Roman Emperors" -- the front page reference (in Did you know?, I think) that led me here flatly equated Kjarr and Julius Caesar. Still, putting the bust of Julius on this page seems somewhat ahistorical -- the name could refer to dozens of men, and Julius is actually one of the less probable candidates, given the time frame, if it is meant to be understood as a personal name at all, rather than a title. --Jfruh (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a valid point. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, according to Viking Empires, (Forte, Angelo, Richard Oram and Frederik Pedersen. Viking Empires. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) Augustus was the first one who promoted political alliances with "magnates" in Scandinavia, particularly Jutland. This was a post-Teutoberg reaction designed to ally with far-off Germanic people against those who were on Rome's borders. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting -- if the origin of the name is assumed to be the title Caesar, rather than the person -- to look at a list of everyone who bore that title in the western empire in the 5th century. (The association between Kiarr and Gunnarr in the Atlakviða would imply an early 5th century context.) The only "Caesars" who come to mind are the sons of a few short-lived usurpers. But "Caesar" could be a more general term, including the Augustii as well -- in which case the usurper Jovinus seems a likely candidate, as he was associated with the historical Gundaharius/Gunnarr. —Abou 08:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is all very interesting. We have a similar question in relation to the East Anglian Wuffinga dynasty in which, (unlike all other English ruling houses of the period) derives itself from a figure 'Caser' or 'Casser', taken to mean 'Caesar', in the next generation or affiliation from Woden. Although this is often taken as signifying some claim to Romanitas or authority in some way linked to Rome it is never adequately explained, and seems very unlikely to refer to Julius Caesar, but rather to a Caesar-like authority expressed in a genealogical way. I am looking forward to knowing more about Kjarr, please keep searching! Dr Steven Plunkett 13:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]