Talk:Nehalennia

Miranda Green

The book Symbol and Image in Celtic Religious Art by Miranda Green (published 1992) states that "Nehalennia is nearly always portrayed with a dog"(p. 5).

Additionally, also by M. Green Animals in Celtic Life and Myth. London, UK: Routledge, 1998. p 200-201:

The tribe of the Morini lived in what is now the Netherlands, bordering the North Sea coast. They venerated a local Celtic goddess, Nehalennia, and set up two temples in her honour. She was a divinity of seafarers, and protected merchants and other travellers who regularly risked their lives and their merchandise in the perilous journey across the sea. Nehalennia’s cult was a successful one: visitors came to worship from as far away as Besançon and Trier. And it was a wealthy cult: the two shrines to the goddess were embellished with numerous altars . . . Nehalennia’s two sanctuaries, at Domburg on the island of Walcheren and at Colijnsplaat on the East Scheldte estuary, are both now submerged beneath the North Sea. However, many of her altars have been recovered, and these display a rich and complex iconography which throws some light on the nature and functions of the goddess. Nehalennia is generally depicted seated, with baskets of fruit as emblems of prosperity and often with marine symbols to signify her presidency over the sea. But most distinctive of all the motifs associated with this North Sea deity is the dog. On nearly every surviving stone — and there are more than a hundred — a large, benign, hound-like animal sits patiently by the goddess’s feet, facing his mistress.

This is from Hilda Roderick Ellis Davidson's Roles of the Northern Goddesses, (pub. 1998): Nehalennia, a Germanic goddess worshipped at the point where travellers crossed the North Sea from the Netherlands, is shown on many carved stones holding loaves and apples like a Mother Goddess, sometimes with a prow of a ship beside her (see p. 112), but also frequently with an attendant dog which sits looking up at her (Plate 5). He was on thirteen of the twenty-one altars recorded by Ada Hondius-Crone (1955: 103), who describes him as a kind of greyhound. . .

L Hamm 02:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oera Linda Book

If you read OERA LINDA BOOK there should be no problem to identify the origin of Nehalennia. Her original name was Minerva, and she was one of "Fryas children". She was taken to Crete and Athens, where cults to her arose. The sailors called her Nyhellenia. Oera Linda Book: [1] See also web-book by Radford: [2]

Rolf Kenneth 80.212.248.109 12:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Oera Linda book is a fake, thought up by a Frisian minister with too much time on his hands. Read the wiki on it :D

Besides, how can the daughter of a Germanic Goddes have a Greek name as her original name?

Krastain 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Greek original name? According to Oera Linda Bôk, "she was called Nyhellenia, because her advises always seemed new and clear"; ny: "new" in Scandinavian; hell: "clear" in German (hel in Dutch). Oh, you mean "Minerva". It is not Greek, but Latin, from Etruscan Menerva. According to Oera Linda Bôk, her given name was Min-Erva, "Threasure of Love" (Middle German minne, "love"; German Erbe, "heritage"). Although in other line it is interpreted differently.

THÁ NY.HEL.LÉNJA. THAM FON HJRA ÀJN NÔME MIN.ERVA HÉTE. GOD SÉTEN WAS ÀND THA KRÉKALANDER HJA TOMET EVEN HÀRDE MINADE AS VS AJN FOLK. THÁ KÉMON THÉR SVME FORSTA ÀND PRESTERA VPPERA BURCH ÀND FRÉJON MIN.ERVA HWÉR OF HJRA ERVA LÉJON. HEL.LÉNJA ANDERE MINA ERVA DRÉG IK OM IN MINA BOSM. HWAT IK URVEN HÀV IS LJAFDE VR WISDOM. RJUCHT ÀND FRYDOM. When Nyhellenia [or Hellenia],(1) whose own name was Minerva, was well established, and the Greeks loved her almost as much as her own folk (2), some princes and priests came to the burg and asked her where her inherited estates or ‘erva’ were. Hellenia answered: ‘I carry “min” — that is, my — “erva” in my heart. What I inherited is love of wisdom, justice and freedom.

(1) ‘ Nyhellenia’ (NY.HEL.LÉNJA) – in the next sentence shortened in original as HEL.LÉNJA, translated here as Hellenia; the name literally means ‘provide new clarity’.

(2) ‘Greeks’ (KRÉKALANDER) from KRÉKALANDA – suggested to mean creek-lands; elsewhere differentiated as ‘near’ (appr. current Italy) and ‘distant’ (appr. current Greece).--Manfariel (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Deity

What date were the earliest coins that depicted her? I added this source today that mentions several interesting points:

• Grimm's Teutonic Mythology (1888); Online by Northvegr © 2004-2007Chapter 13, page 3. Goldenrowley 03:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note I answered my own question on dates so don't botther to go look it up (not I sheepishly got coins and stone votives mixed up). NOW I am wondering if a lot of the "etymology" section, except for what I answered is composed of "original research" and should be reduced to published speculation. Goldenrowley 22:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All of the Etymology section was added by User:Rokus01 in one edit. He edits a lot of archaeology articles. Perhaps you could ask for his sources on his talk page? Alohasoy 23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea I've invited him or her to come discuss here. I'd look forward to knowing of the best sources.Goldenrowley 03:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me. This has really been some time ago. I remember there has been a lot of speculation on the subject, nothing ever being completely satisfactory. Nobody has ever been as bold as to dedicate something like a comprehensive scientific article to the issue. A pity, for now all references are fragmented and published only to express opposition to other views. Thus, restricting yourself to publications you know of would necessarily convey the risk of distortion. Maybe we can expect something from Peter Schrijver in the near future, especally concerning -ennia, since he assumes reminiscent influences from Linear Pottery people, and godesses with -na are almost pan-european (although I wonder if he takes local and slightly less ancient maritime Beaker traditions original enough). The ultimate source to all those speculations is te be found in what is published on proto languages. A lot of symbolism is involved, pointing to a cultural heritage that is largely lost. All of this makes it extremely difficult to grasp any meaning to any speculation at all, if presented without any contextual information. By the way, this compilation is what it is: a compilation, well to be distinguished from original research. No new facts are revealed nor concocted, for this would never be my purpose. Rokus01 19:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OKay! Well I am really "into her" right now as I was just there in Zeeland. If you don't mind I may just copyedit it a bit, but not take anything away. I'll say its a compiliation or something. Goldenrowley 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm

Hmm someone has put her in the Celtic menu. Goldenrowley 22:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sentence of interest

I would like to get several references and suggested page links for the following sentence, which is in the article. Specifically, what sources and pages would best validate and explain this claim? " Today it's understood that Celtic and Germanic tribes shared a common heritage in language as well as ancient religion and were culturally intertwined to a degree." (?) Goldenrowley (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The common heritage in language and ancient religion should be sought in assessments that study the common Indo European origin of language and myth. Of this there are many. Especially the work of Georges Dumézil is interesting, concerning the tripartite-dualistic nature of Indo European myths in general. The tripartite and dualistic nature of Nehalennia has been cited in several assessments.

The cultural intertwining of Celtic and Germanic, at least on a local level, has been thouroughly studied. Archeological studies revealed it is virtually impossible to distinguish one from the other. Linguistic studies have been performed by Peter Schrijver and others, I'ld have to search for it but I guess most I'll find would be in the Dutch language. Intertwining on other levels: e.g. myths, even though it is often hard to distinguish between contact and common heritage. Especially assessments to the Völund saga and the connections between Siegfried and the Celtic Salmon of Knowledge are interesting. I would have to dive into it again.

I am not very much into it now, though maybe this quote (The Prehistory of Germanic Europe by Herbert Schutz, ISBN 0300028636, Ch 6 The Northern Genesis, 1983) will help:"the question concerning the process of differentiation which separated proto-Germanic from the other Indo-European languages is still burdened with nineteenth-century theories of biological naturalism which see the evolution of languages along family-tree lines, thereby presupposing an Indo-European proto- or root language from which others branch out according to organic laws of development. This view would also postulate the emergence of a uniform proto-Germanic language, from which the Germanic languages would evolve. In view of the significant links between Germanic, Celtic and Italic languages on the one hand and Baltic and Slavic languages on the other, the question arises whether Germanic branched out from the Indo-European stem in conjunction with these other languages or whether Germanic branches came in contact with branches of those other languages, or if perhaps the agreement among Germanic, Italic and Celtic languages, as reflected in the names given to lakes and rivers, does not suggest a common proto-European language as a transitional stage between proto Indo-European and the individual European languages. Specialists have yet to formulate an acceptable answer." (as you might know, Schultz was only an influential pioneer) Cheers! Rokus01 (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How nice to hear from you Rokus, this info may help not just this article but others in Europe. As usual I might think about it a while, then incorporate pieces (in this case, the cited source and links i.e. to Peter Schrijver (linguist))... if you don't jump to it first. Thank you! Goldenrowley (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How does one pronounce ...

Nehalennia? --Illustrious One (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the bread info--is it irrelevant? And shin-bone shaped boar loves?

I can't connect the last sentence in the following paragraph from the Inscriptions and depictions section with the goddess Nehalennia. Perhaps this info was copied from another article without verifying the whole paragraph was applicable? Or is there a connection, but either I don't see it or it wasn't made clear?

Davidson further links the motif of the ship associated with Nehalennia with the Germanic Vanir pair of Freyr and Freyja, as well as the Germanic goddess Nerthus,[5] and draws a connection between the loaves of bread that appear on some depictions Nehalennia with oblong, shin-bone shaped loaves of bread baked in the shape of a boar at the time of Yule in Sweden.[6] Davidson further states that customs in Värmland, Sweden "within living memory" describe grain from the last sheaf being used to bake a loaf into the shape of a little girl, as well as examples of elaborate loaves being used for religious festivals, for fertility of fields in Anglo-Saxon England, and examples from Ireland.[6]

Also, I can't envision "oblong, shin-bone shaped loaves of bread baked in the shape of a boar," so is this a misquote? Er, mis-paraphrase?

Thanks for your help in advance! --Geekdiva (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No, this is all paraphrased from the source. What is the trouble? :bloodofox: (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess it's the three conflicting descriptions of the loaves. How can they be 'oblong', 'shin-bone shaped', and 'in the shape of a boar'? None of those things are the same shape.

Also, am I missing something, the Davidson note those are connected to say '1998', with a page number, but the only Davidson reference in the section below the notes is dated 1990.Number36 (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The paraphrase was indeed muddled and it appears that the article was missing the reference cited. Thanks for catching that. The problem should be solved now. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Undue Emphasis on Obscure Theories

What's with the recent edits inserting a useless and misleading template followed by the injection of references to ancient Belgian language? We have a policy against this—WP:UNDUE. Far and away the most common notions on this figure is that her name is either Germanic or Celtic. Inserting a reference to a purely hypothesized "ancient Belgian language" without emphasizing the general academic consensus is misleading to the reader and seems to promote what is nearly a fringe idea. What gives? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That is simply not true, :bloodofox:. Maurits Gysseling was a very notable linguist and calling him "fringe" is absurd. You deleted everything you found unlikely but I see no consensus against it. I prefer the ideas of experts in a field rather than those who just dump it in with Celtic or Germanic. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"Experts in the field" overwhelmingly "dump it into Celtic or Germanic" rather than an entirely hypothesized and entirely unattested group. Emphasizing your personal preference over general academic consensus is not OK and Wikipedia has policies against this sort of emphasis, namely WP:UNDUE. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: So why do you not add some of that? Why do you insist on deleting material that was properly sourced to a respected linguist instead of just adding criticism from others or discussing opposing views? What's notable is that scholars from other countries that are unfamiliar with this are likely to ignore such theories, preferring the simple explanation that has held for ages. But WP:consensus can change, and not only on Wikipedia. There are still plenty of words in West Germanic languages without convincing origin, such as winter. This is tied directly to the Germanic substrate hypothesis, which is not at all "undue". I am perfectly aware of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, but I think I'm not the one with a personal preference here. I have heard no justification for mass removing sourced information other than that you think it's not the truth. Use sources to argue against it, don't say "that linguist is wrong" and delete it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, the issue here is a matter of balance and representation. Per WP:UNDUE, we're supposed to make sure the mainstream academic approach is explicitly clear before attaching before going into comparatively obscure theories within academia, which wasn't the case. Once the article is very clear about mainstream academic consensus, then bring the Nordwest block, etc, stuff in. To be frank, I can barely find time to respond to messages here and on my talk page and nowadays can only do talk page patrolling every now and then, so I can't be charged with bringing that balance into the article at the moment. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: But it's not obscure, it is scholarship. Point is that you hereby charge me to either not add this or to first find much more info that doesn't have to do with the Nordwestblock, but that also shouldn't be my job. WP:DUE doesn't mean that if one possibly majority view isn't represented, the other view must be deleted. Someone else can come along and do it. Maybe I will do it. But I still don't see how deleting the work of a very respected linguist and an archeologist who discuss a popular albeit non-standard theory will solve anything. I can also not find any consensus that it is either Germanic or Celtic, which makes it all the more reasonable to include this one. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The Rein River

It does not go through Zeeland, it is the Schelde River. KsVer (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)