Talk:Norse dwarves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Mythology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] "Artefact"

Actually, the spelling "artefact" is also correct - it's just more British. Ausir 20:27, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Move to "Norse dwarfs"?

The correct plural of "dwarf" in any non-Tolkien context is "dwarfs". I'll move it when I have time, but there are too many links to this page for me to handle right now. If someone can run the renamebot, then please do. PhilHibbs 15:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, currently both forms are considered correct, not only in Tolkien context. My Longman dictionary even gives "dwarves" first - it might have been incorrect earlier, but due to Tolkien's influence, it no longer is. Of course, it does matter which version is used by a particular writer (Tolkien uses dwarves, Pratchett uses dwarfs, some other fantasy works use one or the other), but when it comes to non-English works, like the Norse dwarves, the form used is irrelevant. Ausir 18:55, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am not a native English speaker, but from what I know, Elves and Dwarves seem quite correct compared to similar word forms like leaf->leaves loaf->loaves. It looks like a valid rule in English to do that, and Tolkien was a philologist after all, so I guess he should have known :) --Arny 05:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Even a professor may make mistakes, and as I remember the story Tolkien later admitted that he had little basis for this change (indeed based on th e leaf->leaves form). In younger days he was pretty insistent though. jax (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there are few if any rules in English, especially UK English, and those there are, have exceptions and limits and riders and amiguities. Alex Law 05:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No. There is no such thing as "dwarfs", or "elfs". Could be more correct, but the traditional is dwarves.--Midasminus 16:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. The plural form "dwarves" was invented by Tolkien.— JyriL talk 17:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Durinn link

At the begining, there is a link from Durinn (norse Dwarf) to Durin (Tolkien's dwarf). I'm removing the connection because even though one inspired the other, they're not the same dwarf. Compare that Dvalinn doesn't link to Dwalin (Tolkien) but rather the actual Dvalinn who pertains to Norse mythology.

[edit] "spontaneously generated"

I believe that sentence should be rephrased into something as "...like maggots were thought to...", since this way it looks as a fact that maggots actually get to being via spontaneous generation, which is of course incorrect. --Arny 14:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I read they were maggots given human shape.-- Nitron_Ninja_Apple 12:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Duergar into Norse dwarves

The two articles are duplicates. I think Norse dwarves is a better name than Dvergar (even if we have Jotun and not Norse giant, but dwarf is the literal translation of dverg, which is not the case of jötunn / giant). By the way, I wonder why we have Norse dwarves in plural and Jotun in singular. Sigo 16:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no real reason for Duergar and Norse Dwarves to be in the same article. Dvergar are the Dwarves of Norse Mythology and Duergar/Dwergar are the Dwarves of Northumbrian folklore predominately (though the name has been used to anglicise the Norse version). They are obviously both from the same root (the common Germanic Mythology) but are different 'tribes' of dwarf. Just as the Anglo-Saxons are not Swedes. I do think they should be mentioned in this article however. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

[edit] Redundant links

I've just repaired a couple of the broken links to particular dwarves, and removed some that were pointing to inappropriate pages (mostly to Middle-earth Dwarves or disambiguation pages). This was done with assumption that separate articles about these dwarves are unnecessary or non-notable; if they are to be created, links can be readded, but with disambiguating ending in most cases ("(dwarf)", "(Norse mythology)" or smth). Súrendil 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] height

How do we know how tall the Norse thought Dwarves were? If they were human sized, how comes so many related words such as modern English "dwarf" mean small or stunted? --86.135.216.24 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason that Norse "elves" were originally fully human sized, but ended up like Shakespearean little people, because of the influence of the concept of diminutive fairy.--Haldrik 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, how do we know? Do any of the Eddas or similar sources directly say so? or is it just being assumed? Basically I'm kinda skeptical about the idea that "dwarf" meaning small really comes from the mythological meaning rather than the two meanings having always existed side by side. It seems like an unlikely semantic shift, "regular sized mythological creature" > "small sized mythological creature" > "small sized anything". --86.135.216.24 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the assertion that Norse dwarves were imagined as human sized seems very unlikely. My Old Norse dictionary says that the word "dvergr" could refer to either the mythological dwarves, or to a human of unusually low stature. So, the connection "dwarf" <-> "small" was already made in old Norse times. If this article is going to argue that Norse dwarves were imagined to be of the same height as humans, there should be some very good references for this, otherwise that sentence should be removed immediately.--Barend 23:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The scholarly opinion seems to be somewhere in between what I wrote above and what Haldrik wrote, and I've edited the article accordingly. Rudolf Simek (Lexikon der Germanischen Mythologie) writes Dass man sich die Zwerge ursprünglich als besonders klein vorstellte, ist nicht belegt, erst die Sagas beschreiben sie als kurz und oft hässlich. My tenuous translation: There is no evidence that the dwares were originally envisaged as particularly small, not before the sagas are they described as short and often ugly. However, the sagas were also written in the old Norse culture, only at a later stage than the eddas. So in a description of "Norse dwarves", this development should be mentioned. An example of a short dwarf, off the top of my head, is to be found in Þiðrekssaga (mid-13th century), where the heroes encounter, and capture, the dwarf Alfrik. He diverts them by informing them of a large treasure they may find, "and to seek this treasure with your companion is a greater deed than capturing my small body and short legs."--Barend 14:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Cool. The point about the later Fornaldarsaga and height, is a nice clarification. --Haldrik 16:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm still confused. Why were they even called dwarf in the first place if they weren't originally short? Regardless of whether the semantic change occured during the Old Norse culture or afterwards, we're left with the same problem. --86.142.170.168 (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Assuming the etymological reconstruction of Proto-Indoeuro *dhwergwhos to mean 'small' is correct, perhaps the Norse described human-sized Dvergar to be 'small' relative to the giant Jötnar, who also personify earth and stones in the form of entire mountains and landscapes. --Haldrik (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About accolades in citations

In the section "Dvergatal: the list of the Dvergar", accolades ("{" and "}") are used, presumable to indicate an absence of the indicated parts in original or reconstructed originial material, but this is never explained. Shinobu (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the explanation. The names in the accolades are missing from the earlier manuscript.--Haldrik (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary and secondary sources

I think using primary sources is a good thing for many reasons but I also think that they need to be used in the light of the best secondary sources. I.e. I'm happy with our articles quoting (and showing) the primary sources but the conclusions we draw from them should be cited to published scholarly works. For example I'm not sure we should make the point about the relative sizes of Reginn and Sigurðr in the Norwegian artwork unless we can cite the observation to a published source.

I think we should use previously published translations as much as we can. When a specific point needs to be made about a specific word or phrase in the original text then it can be cited to scholarly discussion (and, in some cases, dictionaries). See Four stags of Yggdrasill for a recent (uncompleted and currently mired in the 19th century) example of the methodology I'm currently applying. I don't claim to have all the answers but I've been struggling with this problem for some time. Haukur 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose using these translators. They are dated, inaccurate, and useless. Theirs are not scholarly translations. Similarly, I would not use unsuitable translators for biblical texts. --Haldrik (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It would, of course, be nice if there were better English translations of the Poetic Edda out there. Dronke's translation is the only one which I would call scholarly and reliable and unfortunately it only covers half the poems. Haukur (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
An ad hoc 'Wiki translation' is an acceptable solution. (Translations of other texts of antiquity are sometimes ad hoc for similar reasons. The difficult texts are precisely the ones that the popular translations tend to smooth over, making the translations less suitable for scholarly discussion.) Editors can verify the accuracy of the translations. Translations are usually obvious and indisputable. Texts that are genuinely ambiguous or obscure, need the commentary anyway, and editors naturally emphasize difficult texts as they cite sources to clarify their meaning. --Haldrik (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The equality of Dvergar with Svartalfar and Dokkalfar

The article seems to take for granted the fact that these three names refer to the same race, but the only reasoning that it offers is that both Dvergar and Svartalfar live underground. Statements such as "even tho[ugh] the Prose Edda is the only early source to use these terms and by them clearly mean Dvergar" seem to be extremely adamant to this. In fact, the given state of Dokkalfar and Svartalfar as being dwarves or elves seems to be neutral: on one hand, they live underground, while on the other, they are called, with a prefix modification, Alfar, the same as the guys that apparently hold council with the gods and are mentioned a grand total of four or five times. I'm pretty tired at the moment and may be missing a detail, but otherwise it seems a rule is used in the discussions of the article while not justified at any point, so the best thing would be to add such a justification from the sources or to simply say that scholars believe the three names to be equated. Does anyone else feel this need? Found Missing (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good move, feel free. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the article does have some fairly substantial evidence to equate the races that I missed due to them being a quote box with just the right formula for my eyes to skip, though still some statements seem completely unsourced, and this evidence is still not absolute. I'm generally changing the tone of the matter throughout the article to reflect this and remove its absolute attitude; feel free to revert it or further change the article to something in-between the old and new versions. Found Missing (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

It's impossible (at least difficult) to tell how much of the article is original research as most of the sources are books, though its highly analytical tone would suggest that it at least synthesizes statements from sources to come to new conclusions. There is one statement, though, that seems to almost certainly be original research: that that Dvergar only have black hair. The two justifications given for this do not seem to logically hold up. The first, that a dwarf would have to have a nose surround by a dark beard/moustache to be "pale about the nose" seems to be largely an assumption; there are numerous other possible explanations given the little information. Being "pale about the nose" would also imply that the nose is paler than any other part of the body, unlike it simply being contrasted from the surrounding area as the explanation given states. The other explanation is found in the statement (referring to 'svartr' in 'Svartalfar', a name for Dvergar): "(It is analogous to the English term 'brunette', which always refers to brown hair and never brown skin.)". According to Dictionary.com, the definition of "brunette" is:

–adjective
1. (of hair, eyes, skin, etc.) of a dark color or tone.
2. (of a person) having dark hair and, often, dark eyes and darkish or olive skin.
–noun
3. a person, esp. a female, with such coloration.

The article states that this word only refers to hair color, while in fact it can also refer to skin and eye color. Logically, 'svartr' could be applied to all or one of these attributes, rather than only hair. Note that this analysis should never be used in the article as it -is- original research; it is only an attempt to cast doubt on the plausibility of the statement and its source from a scholarly publication. Being a very new member and not knowing the statement's author here's use of source or research (as of yet) from her or his own words, I won't even attempt to edit or re-arrange the section in which this statement is found, though I will place the Original Research tag there, which of course should be removed once the idea in question is attributed to a source. To the person that added the statement: none of the statements above are meant to demean or antagonize you or your contribution. I fully expect to be corrected rather than supported on the issue; this is only my attempt to possibly improve the article and to hold a subject that I am personally passionate about to the same standard as other, more popular areas on Wikipedia. If you are offended by either this talk page entry or the tag for whatever duration it remains up, you have my sincere apology. Found Missing (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If brunette can be used to describe skin colour, that doesn't mean svartr can (it may have been a bad comparison). So long as the author's Norse is correct, blár is the correct term for black skin, rather than svartr. To all my knowledge (which, in the case of Old Norse, is next to none), the author is right (although I'd like to know how this relates to svartr, as in svartálfar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.199.159 (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Found Missing that there is too much original research in the article. As for "svartr", my Norse-Norwegian dictionary gives the meaning as "svart, mørk", which in English would be "black, dark", and gives no indication that this only applies to hair.--Barend (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


I´ve heard a theory that humans, long ago, were smaller than nowadays, due to lacking hygiene. But as we humans started thinking about staying clean, we slowly began to grow in size. Maybe humans simply grew taller than the the dwarves over a long period of time, while the dwarves stayed small and dirty. I´d love a comment on this one:)

[edit] Paolini?

Christopher Paolini may be a talanted novelist, but he is a contemporary author and thus referencing him as an equal to Tolkien, as done in "In popular culture" section, is not appropriate. I guess we should refer to founders of fantasy tradition there. That's why I suggest replaing Christopher Paolini with someone like C. S. Lewis, Ursula Le Guin or Robert E. Howard. I believe books by every one of them featured dwarves as seen in Norse myths. Netrat_msk (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Any support for 'Dark Elves Hypothesis?'

I have deleted the section that began with the following paragraph, since no scholarly support for this theory is given, and I know of none:

Dark elves hypothesis

One scholar, William P. Reaves,[8] hypothesized 'dark elves' were understood even in the Viking Era to be a malevolent faction of 'elves', distinct from 'dwarves'. While conceding the lateness of the poem Hrafnagaldr Óðins (see above), he argues it may preserve an oral tradition deriving from the Viking Era that was almost lost. He equates 'dark elves' with 'black elves' and must then accuse the Prose Edda of having wrongly confused them with Dvergar – even though the Prose Edda is the only early source to use these terms and by them almost certainly mean Dvergar. Thereby, Reeves reinterprets certain stories preserved in the Prose Edda as referring to early Norse myths that involve 'dark elves'.

This passage is apparently based on an essay that has been posted on various websites and elists for at least a decade, but seems to consist entirely of one layman's personal speculations. The author is not himself a scholar, his essay cites to no scholarly support for his theory, and the essay itself has never been published. Consequently, unless someone can point to any published scholarship that supports this section, I don't believe it belongs in this article. Rsradford (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)