Germanic art, artefacts and runes, BC-AD; news & discussion

[Rodoorn]

[Rodoorn]

Golden Sword Knop Ezinge, Groningen, early seventh century, assumed relationship with Wijnaldum (^^^) and Sutton Hoo.



By the way my last name is derived from a line from nearby Ezinge: 
https://www.oostum.nl/

[Orentil]

While screening through some artefacts from the Thuringian empire (ca. 480-531) I stumbled over an tremissis coin (imitate?) found in Boilstädt, Thuringia, Germany displaying Victoria. The way her wing is drawn caught my eye. I compared it with a gold bracteate found in Vindelev some years ago. In a discussion between JonikW and me we both agreed that the small side figure on the left side must have used Victoria as a template based on the globe-like ball in her one hand and a laurel wreath in the other hand. In addition there is a garbled palm frond next to her feet.
What we did not discuss, if I remember right, was the strange body shape, described by Morten Axboe as fish-like. But a comparison with the Boilstädt tremissis makes it very probable that simply the wing of Victoria was merged with her body (on purpose or by accident?). Compare also the position of the feet still pointing to a seated Victoria.
Of course there is the possibility that this is not only a garbled version of Victoria but that the meaning changed, as we discussed.

A very specific observation, but I thought I share it here :-)

[JonikW]

While screening through some artefacts from the Thuringian empire (ca. 480-531) I stumbled over an tremissis coin (imitate?) found in Boilstädt, Thuringia, Germany displaying Victoria. The way her wing is drawn caught my eye. I compared it with a gold bracteate found in Vindelev some years ago. In a discussion between JonikW and me we both agreed that the small side figure on the left side must have used Victoria as a template based on the globe-like ball in her one hand and a laurel wreath in the other hand. In addition there is a garbled palm frond next to her feet.
What we did not discuss, if I remember right, was the strange body shape, described by Morten Axboe as fish-like. But a comparison with the Boilstädt tremissis makes it very probable that simply the wing of Victoria was merged with her body (on purpose or by accident?). Compare also the position of the feet still pointing to a seated Victoria.
Of course there is the possibility that this is not only a garbled version of Victoria but that the meaning changed, as we discussed.

A very specific observation, but I thought I share it here :-)

That's an amazing discovery Orentil. I think you're right that Victoria's wings on the tremissis look like they inspired the Vindelev figure's body shape. It seems you've identified an important missing link between official issuance like the example below (which you posted during our earlier AG discussion) and the bracteate imagery.



I'm confident that tremissis from Boilstädt is an imitate, as you suggest, a “pseudo-imperial” Frankish coin based on a Roman/Byzantine model. What this seems to me to mean is that the Vindelev bracteate maker had seen both finely made official issuance featuring Victoria and the labarum imperial standard in my image above (he places the latter under his figure's feet, as we discussed earlier) and imitates exactly like that tremissis.

I think we touched very briefly on the body earlier when I recall suggesting the possibility that the bracteate figure was wearing a tasseled cloak of the kind common in Germanic lands (and surviving in Danish examples from bogs). I'm by no means saying that idea was correct, but I can see how the wings on the tremissis Victoria could actually be construed as a cloak. It's interesting that the Victoria on the official coin above is so small that it isn't necessarily clear that she's winged either unless you're familiar with Roman iconography. She might instead have been viewed by the bracteate maker as wearing a cloak, as is the emperor clasping her in his hand.

Of course an official tremissis would show clear wings but I assume the bracteate maker only had access to a limited number of coins. Anyway, just an additional idea, but your own observation on the link between the imitate tremissis and the bracteate strikes me as important and disproves the fish-like body theory which always appeared misguided to start with.

[Orentil]

As you say, the artist must have had access to different coins/motifs and combined them.

For the tremissis, a template could have looked similar to the one below.

[Rodoorn]

While screening through some artefacts from the Thuringian empire (ca. 480-531) I stumbled over an tremissis coin (imitate?) found in Boilstädt, Thuringia, Germany displaying Victoria. The way her wing is drawn caught my eye. I compared it with a gold bracteate found in Vindelev some years ago. In a discussion between JonikW and me we both agreed that the small side figure on the left side must have used Victoria as a template based on the globe-like ball in her one hand and a laurel wreath in the other hand. In addition there is a garbled palm frond next to her feet.
What we did not discuss, if I remember right, was the strange body shape, described by Morten Axboe as fish-like. But a comparison with the Boilstädt tremissis makes it very probable that simply the wing of Victoria was merged with her body (on purpose or by accident?). Compare also the position of the feet still pointing to a seated Victoria.
Of course there is the possibility that this is not only a garbled version of Victoria but that the meaning changed, as we discussed.

A very specific observation, but I thought I share it here :-)

That's an amazing discovery Orentil. I think you're right that Victoria's wings on the tremissis look like they inspired the Vindelev figure's body shape. It seems you've identified an important missing link between official issuance like the example below (which you posted during our earlier AG discussion) and the bracteate imagery.



I'm confident that tremissis from Boilstädt is an imitate, as you suggest, a “pseudo-imperial” Frankish coin based on a Roman/Byzantine model. What this seems to me to mean is that the Vindelev bracteate maker had seen both finely made official issuance featuring Victoria and the labarum imperial standard in my image above (he places the latter under his figure's feet, as we discussed earlier) and imitates exactly like that tremissis.

I think we touched very briefly on the body earlier when I recall suggesting the possibility that the bracteate figure was wearing a tasseled cloak of the kind common in Germanic lands (and surviving in Danish examples from bogs). I'm by no means saying that idea was correct, but I can see how the wings on the tremissis Victoria could actually be construed as a cloak. It's interesting that the Victoria on the official coin above is so small that it isn't necessarily clear that she's winged either unless you're familiar with Roman iconography. She might instead have been viewed by the bracteate maker as wearing a cloak, as is the emperor clasping her in his hand.

Of course an official tremissis would show clear wings but I assume the bracteate maker only had access to a limited number of coins. Anyway, just an additional idea, but your own observation on the link between the imitate tremissis and the bracteate strikes me as important and disproves the fish-like body theory which always appeared misguided to start with.

I guess this is going to be blasphemy for the right honorable gentlemen JonikW and Orentil, but  these bracteate and the following works of Stefan Burmeister about Germanic warlords came into my mind when I saw a documentary about a Haitian warlord.....'old habits never die'  



https://www.researchgate.net/publication...09_392-402

https://www.academia.edu/104396935/Germa...rds_Räuber

[Orentil]

Diamonds are a girls best friend - and gold attracts boys as well…

[Orentil]

As we are currently discussing in another thread the Langobardian cemetery of Mödling-Leinerinnen (i.e. Vienna, Austria) where we are now getting  genetic data, I'd like to take the opportunity to compare some bow brooches found there (4, 5 in black and white; 1 and 2 are from Montale, Cividale, Northern Italy) with a bow brooch I just saw recently on display in an exhibition in Friedberg, near Augsburg, Bavaria. Please note how similar the motive on the footplate is with the two intertwined animal bodies - all of them a very much related and somewhere on the way between style I and style II, around 550 AD, the Friedberg one maybe a bit later. On the other side we see different solutions for the headplate, small square headed versus different versions of semi-circular and typical Langobardian style. Even I argued before that Augsburg might have been a very important place for producing and designing brooches, I would rather assume that the original design was from somewhere in Pannonia or Lower Austria then the other way round.

[JonikW]

As we are currently discussing in another thread the Langobardian cemetery of Mödling-Leinerinnen (i.e. Vienna, Austria) where we are now getting  genetic data, I'd like to take the opportunity to compare some bow brooches found there (4, 5 in black and white; 1 and 2 are from Montale, Cividale, Northern Italy) with a bow brooch I just saw recently on display in an exhibition in Friedberg, near Augsburg, Bavaria. Please note how similar the motive on the footplate is with the two intertwined animal bodies - all of them a very much related and somewhere on the way between style I and style II, around 550 AD, the Friedberg one maybe a bit later. On the other side we see different solutions for the headplate, small square headed versus different versions of semi-circular and typical Langobardian style. Even I argued before that Augsburg might have been a very important place for producing and designing brooches, I would rather assume that the original design was from somewhere in Pannonia or Lower Austria then the other way round.

Amazing brooches Orentil. I love the design of No 2 in particular. Seeing these images reminded me that I bought a tiny bow brooch back in my collecting days. It was only a few pounds and I assumed it was a fake when I paid for it and I planned to turn it into a keyring.

The more I looked at it though, including the patina in the areas that hadn't been harshly cleaned, the more I started to think it was a legitimate artefact. Hence I never ended up turning it into that keyring I planned.

If it's genuine I'm surprised by its tiny size although I do have a Roman trumpet brooch of the same scale that I assume once fastened a child's garments. I'd be interested in any views. It's very obviously a Continental design but I can't remember where the seller was based. I failed to keep my usual record because of my initial assumption.





PS: thanks for your post Rodoorn. Completely agree and there's no trace of blasphemy there of course. ;-)

[Orentil]

As we are currently discussing in another thread the Langobardian cemetery of Mödling-Leinerinnen (i.e. Vienna, Austria) where we are now getting  genetic data, I'd like to take the opportunity to compare some bow brooches found there (4, 5 in black and white; 1 and 2 are from Montale, Cividale, Northern Italy) with a bow brooch I just saw recently on display in an exhibition in Friedberg, near Augsburg, Bavaria. Please note how similar the motive on the footplate is with the two intertwined animal bodies - all of them a very much related and somewhere on the way between style I and style II, around 550 AD, the Friedberg one maybe a bit later. On the other side we see different solutions for the headplate, small square headed versus different versions of semi-circular and typical Langobardian style. Even I argued before that Augsburg might have been a very important place for producing and designing brooches, I would rather assume that the original design was from somewhere in Pannonia or Lower Austria then the other way round.

Amazing brooches Orentil. I love the design of No 2 in particular. Seeing these images reminded me that I bought a tiny bow brooch back in my collecting days. It was only a few pounds and I assumed it was a fake when I paid for it and I planned to turn it into a keyring.

The more I looked at it though, including the patina in the areas that hadn't been harshly cleaned, the more I started to think it was a legitimate artefact. Hence I never ended up turning it into that keyring I planned.

If it's genuine I'm surprised by its tiny size although I do have a Roman trumpet brooch of the same scale that I assume once fastened a child's garments. I'd be interested in any views. It's very obviously a Continental design but I can't remember where the seller was based. I failed to keep my usual record because of my initial assumption.





PS: thanks for your post Rodoorn. Completely agree and there's no trace of blasphemy there of course. ;-)

You should start collecting again, JonikW :-) For me it looks genuine. Some of the brooches are very small, see e.g. the picture below. Even there is no scale I would say that the BFMiniat in the left upper corner will have the same size, actually it looks very similar besides the 3 instead of the 5 knobs.

[Orentil]

As we are currently discussing in another thread the Langobardian cemetery of Mödling-Leinerinnen (i.e. Vienna, Austria) where we are now getting  genetic data, I'd like to take the opportunity to compare some bow brooches found there (4, 5 in black and white; 1 and 2 are from Montale, Cividale, Northern Italy) with a bow brooch I just saw recently on display in an exhibition in Friedberg, near Augsburg, Bavaria. Please note how similar the motive on the footplate is with the two intertwined animal bodies - all of them a very much related and somewhere on the way between style I and style II, around 550 AD, the Friedberg one maybe a bit later. On the other side we see different solutions for the headplate, small square headed versus different versions of semi-circular and typical Langobardian style. Even I argued before that Augsburg might have been a very important place for producing and designing brooches, I would rather assume that the original design was from somewhere in Pannonia or Lower Austria then the other way round.

Amazing brooches Orentil. I love the design of No 2 in particular. Seeing these images reminded me that I bought a tiny bow brooch back in my collecting days. It was only a few pounds and I assumed it was a fake when I paid for it and I planned to turn it into a keyring.

The more I looked at it though, including the patina in the areas that hadn't been harshly cleaned, the more I started to think it was a legitimate artefact. Hence I never ended up turning it into that keyring I planned.

If it's genuine I'm surprised by its tiny size although I do have a Roman trumpet brooch of the same scale that I assume once fastened a child's garments. I'd be interested in any views. It's very obviously a Continental design but I can't remember where the seller was based. I failed to keep my usual record because of my initial assumption.





PS: thanks for your post Rodoorn. Completely agree and there's no trace of blasphemy there of course. ;-)

You should start collecting again, JonikW :-) For me it looks genuine. Some of the brooches are very small, see e.g. the picture below. Even there is no scale I would say that the BFMiniat in the left upper corner will have the same size, actually it looks very similar besides the 3 instead of the 5 knobs.

I didn't comment on the size. It seems to be of similar size as the bird brooches. Maybe it was worn similar to them? Still not sure if I like the idea of a keyring or not, but at least it would bring it to a new life and it would be more visible then in a drawer. This would also be a way of showing respect to it.

[JonikW]

Amazing brooches Orentil. I love the design of No 2 in particular. Seeing these images reminded me that I bought a tiny bow brooch back in my collecting days. It was only a few pounds and I assumed it was a fake when I paid for it and I planned to turn it into a keyring.

The more I looked at it though, including the patina in the areas that hadn't been harshly cleaned, the more I started to think it was a legitimate artefact. Hence I never ended up turning it into that keyring I planned.

If it's genuine I'm surprised by its tiny size although I do have a Roman trumpet brooch of the same scale that I assume once fastened a child's garments. I'd be interested in any views. It's very obviously a Continental design but I can't remember where the seller was based. I failed to keep my usual record because of my initial assumption.





PS: thanks for your post Rodoorn. Completely agree and there's no trace of blasphemy there of course. ;-)

You should start collecting again, JonikW :-) For me it looks genuine. Some of the brooches are very small, see e.g. the picture below. Even there is no scale I would say that the BFMiniat in the left upper corner will have the same size, actually it looks very similar besides the 3 instead of the 5 knobs.

I didn't comment on the size. It seems to be of similar size as the bird brooches. Maybe it was worn similar to them? Still not sure if I like the idea of a keyring or not, but at least it would bring it to a new life and it would be more visible then in a drawer. This would also be a way of showing respect to it.

Thanks Orentil. The Roman brooch that I mentioned is miniscule but undoubtedly real so I figured it might be possible for some of the later continental radiate-headed brooches to be of a similar size.

I do feel a bit guilty these days about owning these artefacts but at least they're in safe hands and I've conserved every one of them very carefully using Renaissance Wax. The other idea I had for this brooch if it had been fake was to use it as a zip tag on my rucksack. But given that I now think it's a genuine artefact I'll keep it safely in my collection.

I mentioned before that I've documented everything carefully (apart from this brooch because I assumed it was fake when I bought it). I've also sketched every item when adding it to the catalogue. However poor your drawing skills might be, I've found sketching to be really useful for getting the eye in with the differences between the Germanic art styles in particular. Drawing something forces you to concentrate on the shapes and proportions in a way we don't normally do when we just observe artefacts.

[Ambiorix]

The past couple of months for me have consisted of  of a fair amount of reading (I took out some 15 books from my university library), including not only the expected literature from Germanic and Celtic Studies scholars, but also foraying into topics such as Slavic and Eurasian mythology, philosophy, etc., hence over a couple posts I hope to share some excerpts from works that I think will be of interest to everybody in the thread and apply my own interpretation and/or criticism of the respective works.

Some time ago I proposed that Tuisto may have been understood as a tree (and thus the same being as later Yggdrasil) based on the prevalence of tree-human equivalence in Norse myth and hints of the sacralization of groves and trees in other attested Germanic mythology (e.g., Askr and Embla being born from trees, Líf and Lífþrasir hiding in Hoddmímis holt, the Semnones’ claim of descent from their god who dwelled in the sacred grove, the prevalence of tree-related personal names among Germanic-speaking groups in the Migration Period, etc.). Although I failed to include this in my previous post, *Twistaz (interpreted by scholars variously as “Twin” and “Twice”, although I favour the second interpretation) potentially finds a tree-related descendant term in the form of Old Norse kvistr (“twig, branch”) – although traditionally connected to the Vedic god Tvashtr, *Twistaz seems to instead be connected to Sanskrit dvistha- “staying in two places, ambiguous” (Orel 2003, A Handbook of Germanic Etymology, p. 414), with the ambiguity or twofold nature of a progenitor-god being perfectly encapsulated in the asexuality of trees (although other related terms point to conflict/quarrel in other Germanic languages). Noteworthy is also the fact that Tuisto is described as deum terra editum and is hailed as an ancestor figure by the early Germanic peoples according to Tacitus, which not only suggests that Tuisto is an independent figure unconnected to Ymir, but also connects to trees via the act of vegetation and growth out of the soil itself. As a result of these considerations, I tend to interpret Tvashtr as only superficially being related to Tuisto, i.e., unless there were a more convincing etymological argument connecting the two deities, the names bear only a passing resemblance to one-another and share no deeper connection (Tvashtr meaning “creator” and apparently deriving from a different Indo-European root).

Despite my objections to the traditional bias of connecting Tuisto with Tvashtr and my unorthodox interpretation of Tuisto as World Tree/Axis Mundi, I found myself pleasantly surprised by Cöllen (2015), Heimdallr – der rätselhafte Gott, a must-have and surely a crucial work for the fields of Norse and Germanic studies going forward (although the fact it lacks a translation in a more globalized language like English is unfortunate). Cöllen (2015) starts off his work by interrogating and criticizing the methodologies and interpretive frameworks of older historians and their schools of thought, with the varying interpretations of the god including depicting him as a dawn god, “Lichthimmels” (heavenly light?), moon god, sun/sunshine god, rainbow god, Nordic Dyauh or Christ figure (cf. Dumézil), ram god, divine elf or “Hofwicht”/house wight (?), a cognate with Vedic Agni, or even a personification of the World Tree itself (p. 11). The author is especially critical of the “naturmythologische Schule” from the latter half of the 19th century, which developed from the emerging field of comparative Proto-Indo-European linguistics, with its overarching framework assuming natural phenomena (particularly light) were the defining trait of gods and by extension the root of various deity names, resulting in Bich uncritically characterizing Heimdallr as a sun/sky god (Ibid). Problematised by Cöllen is also the notion of Heimdallr as a star god, stemming from the work of Hugo Pippings which was based on Sami materials and cultic representation of the North Star on world pole, further connected by Pippings to the regginaglar of North Germanic tradition (p. 12); according to Cöllen, the connections largely rest on ambiguous etymologies and are otherwise vague. While I do think that exploring Sami and Finnish folk material is crucial to understanding the various stages of development of Germanic religious traditions (not just among North Germanic speakers, but also at the Pre-Germanic and Proto-Germanic stages), Cöllen helps restrict the act of interpretation toward a much simpler and secure notion of Heimdallr as a deity primarily concerned with lineage and hierarchy as opposed to embodying the rather baseless and flimsy interpretations he views as having been advanced by previous scholarship.

Expanding this notion of Heimdallr as a god of lineage and order, Cöllen not only connects Heimdallr to Ymir, but also makes a deliberate comparison of the god to Tacitus’ Tuisto (pp. 148-149); Heimdallr is defined by the fact he is a primeval god born of elements (unlike the other gods who are procreated), is fatherless just like Buri, and his primevality is alluded to in old myth preserved in Snorri Edda where Auduhembla thawed from ice and rose from waters before world was created (p. 148). Furthermore, Cöllen identifies Heimdallr as part of a Germanic mythological motif wherein a young man whose origin is unknown sails across the sea and becomes ancestor of powerful families, e.g., Scyld Sceafing:

“Fur den mythologischen Stammvater, per definitionem den Ersten, scheint die wunderbare, vaterlose Geburt folglich ein logisches und wohl belegtes Mythologem zu sein” (p. 149).

In Hyndluljod, Cöllen further identifies three themes related to Heimdallr: 1) his birth from nine mothers; 2) his strengthening (“Kraftstarkung”); 3) his role as prince and progenitor:

“Die enge Verknupfung der Motive "Geburt" und "Kraftstarkung" lasst die Frage nach deren Zusammenhjang miteinander aufkommen. Sie scheinen chronologische Stationen im Werden des Gottes - der am Ende als Stammvater erscheint und so eine neue Geburt veranlasst - auszumachen. Vielleicht konnte man sogar das letztere Motiv thematisch unter dem ersteren einordnen und naher als eine "zweite Geburt" - eine gewohlniche Umschreibung fur Ubergangsriten - des Gottes kennzeichnen. Wie im Zusammenhang mit der naheren Auslegung der Hyndluljod dargelegt werden soll, trifft diese Charakterisierung der Motivereihe die wesentliche Funktion von dieser im Kontext des Liedes, nalich als Gegenbild zum Werden des mechlichen Protagonisten, Ottar ungi. Auch dieser steht vor einer Art Ubergansritus (einer Wette) nach dem er bereichtigt werden soll, als hervorragender Vertreter der von Heimdallr-Riger legitimierten dominanten Ordnung den Thron einzunehmen” (p. 150)

Cöllen also compares Heimdallr with Cu Chulainn, “the hound of Culann”; dogs are characterized for their liminal quality in Celtic and Germanic myth as otherworldly being, further connected to the initiation ritual into the brotherhood of warriors and the eventual joining into the host of adult warriors (p. 151). In this context, Cöllen argues the most important fact is the hero Cu Chulainn then experiences a series of stormy adventures and must be cooled down via immersion into three barrels of water (in succession) after being engulfed in a fighting rage, culminating in the symbolic birth of a warrior:

“Wie Kim R. McCone erkannt hat, sind in der Erzählung die wesentlichen Stadien und Stationen eines mannerbundischen Ubergangsrituals vorhanden. In diesem Zusammenhang mag die Abkuhlung des Helden als ein unangebrachtes und komisches Motiv erscheinen; doch kann eine teifere Symbolik dahinter liegen. Vergleichbar ist ein Bericht des griechischen Heilkuntslters Soranos, der zur Zeit des Kaisers Trajan von einem interessanten Brauch unter den Germanen zu erzahlen wusste, namlich von jenem, das neuegeborene Kind in kaltes Wasser einzutauchen, um es angeblich abzuharten. Inhaltlich naher kommt aber Statius' Achilleis, in dem der junge Held Achill in den Styx getaucht wird, um unverwunderbar zu werden. Es ist moglich, dass diese Version eine sehr spate ist. In Appolonios' Argonautika olt Achills Mutter den Helden mit Ambrosia ein und legt ihn in das Feuer, um die sterblichen Teile seines Korpers zu verbrennen. Der Historiker Miochael J. Enright hat aber bemerkt, dass sich beide Versionen mit dem Schmiedurch Versenkung desselben in eine kalte Flussigkeit, wodurch die Waffe harter wird, im letzeren Fall an das Erhitzen des Materials, was bewirkt, dass das Metall gereinigt Abkuhlen von Cu Chulainn ware zweifellos ein treffendes Bild fur genau denselben Inhalt. Gehartet, gereinigt wie das Eisen: die rituelle Geburt eines Kriegers!” (p. 141)

Cöllen invokes archaeology by identifying this motif on the Gundestrup cauldron in the form of a snake leading a host of warriors, which Jan de Vries interpreted as a symbolic death and rebirth (the snake being regenerative and leading the initiated cohort into battle) (p. 142). Based on comparative analysis with Celtic and Germanic cultural motifs, Cöllen not only seems to identify Heimdallr with Tuisto (or otherwise as inheritor of the role of Tuisto in the earlier pantheon), but that shared characteristics between Heimdallr and Cu Chulainn indicate overlapping function related to initiation into the society of warriors and the ordaining and legitimisation of various social roles.

Unfortunately, I lost most of my notes in an update to my computer and have returned the book, but I do find the possibility of Heimdallr as an aspect or personification of Yggdrasil/the World Tree to be worth further consideration based on what I mentioned before (maybe the topic of a future paper?). I will have to look more into the work of Hugo Pipping (the scholar responsible for this theory, seemingly based on a proposed etymology of Heim (“home”) + -dallur (“fruit-bearing tree”)) - I greatly doubt this proposed etymology yet think the connection with Yggdrasil can be salvaged anyway (if only for other reasons). It is remarkable that Cöllen compares Heimdallr with Cu Chulainn instead of Manannán mac Lir, although this does not negate the mythological commonalities between the respective figures even if Manannán mac Lir is the more obvious comparison. Worth considering is also the fact that PGmc. *twistaz seems to produce terms related to conflict and confrontation in all Germanic languages except English, although most scholars still view the name as implying some sort of hermaphroditism due to the *twi- stem (in which case the fact the first man, *Mannaz, follows from *Twistaz is significant) – the semantics of the name would probably point to the division of the sexes starting with *Mannaz, but not in the sense of Tuisto bifurcating into two beings (as I have read suggested before) but rather than Tuisto was self-contained unlike *Mannaz (although we can also think of German Zwitter). 

P.S. a probable depiction of Heimdallr from Jurby, Isle of Man, sounding the Gjallarhorn to signal the beginning of Ragnarok (https://archive.org/details/runicothermo...9/mode/2up) - from what I can tell, the runestone has degraded considerably since this drawing was made, with the figure in the top left corner having disappeared altogether. If I am not mistaken the figure appears to be lupine which would of course accord well with the notion of this being the beginning of Ragnarok - potentially Fenrir seated opposite to Heimdallr? It could also be some abstract shape unrelated to Heimdallr, but the other Manx runestones play with mirror images of specific beings or seating creatures opposite from one-another (especially in the upper margins) so I am inclined to see this as a representation of some sort of antagonistic character (either Fenrir or Loki):

[Orentil]

Thanks for sharing, Ambiorix! Unfortunately I find no time in the moment to work on such exciting topics as Heimdal and the world tree. Just today I read an interesting article in "Der Standard" referring to a study with the title "Solving the Starry Symbols of Sargon II" by Martin Worthington. Unfortunately the original article is beyond a paywall, therefore I can just refer to the Standard summary.
https://www.derstandard.de/story/3000000...-mysterium
Worthington is discussing a series of 5 pictures in the palace of Sargon and comes to the conclusion that the pictures have a connection to the name of Sargon. The pictures depict a lion, eagle, bull, (fig) tree and plough. Worthington connects three of them to the constellations of Leo, Aquila, Taurus. Not sure about his ideas about the fig tree and the plough.
I find his ideas extremely interesting. The three constellations Leo, Aquila, Taurus refer to the three "royal stars" Regulus, Antares, Aldebaran. The fourth star of the four royal stars is Fomalhaut in Piscis Australis and indeed in my astronomical speculations on the Eddas I worked on in the past I argued that Fomalhaut refers to a fish swimming in the "Fountain of Youth" below the "Tree of Life" (=Yggdrasil) with the stem of the tree referring to the "Great Square of Pegasus" and the twigs and leaves referring to the Milky Way. But it would be a long story to present my evidence for this...

[JonikW]

This new video from Jackson Crawford looks good on Dutch artefacts. I haven't watched it yet but hope to over the weekend.

https://youtu.be/TubiDNS-3oQ?si=ilz2DHeI3vmycZGj

I was about to visit Sweden and see Uppsala and other gems but have been ill for nearly six weeks and have just cancelled. Have got a hospital appointment tomorrow and still hope to be able to do that trip one day when I'm better. I certainly don't feel ready to visit Valhalla just yet. I've already drunk a few horns of very tasty mead in "Valhalla" in the past (the excellent Viking themed pub of that name in York). ;-)

PS My heartfelt thanks to Strider99 for the Swedish site tips, which I'll keep for future reference.