The following was initially an exploration for what I consider to be the likely meaning for the Rune *Algiz ᛉ (beautifully illustrated there by ‘Automatic Moon’), featuring discussion also upon the theology for Ullr.

It then … grew rather significantly – and now seems to feature a rather expansive hypothesis viz. a ‘working model’ for a Germanic expression of the archaic Indo-European ‘Sacred Space / Ritual Enclosure’ structure.

But let’s start from the beginning. I’d noticed a rather … heavily bemusing tweet directed at an associate and which had asserted (as these types are often wont to do) that, and I quote:

“The Algiz is nothing more than a Forked Cross, the Rood on which our Saviour (Healend) was nailed. You are a larper and know nothing of your Volk.”

The Algiz is nothing more than a Forked Cross, the Rood on which our Saviour (Healend) was nailed. You are a larper and know nothing of your Volk.

— Pope of Tiki 🌴🍹 (@popeoftiki) May 25, 2024

Now, this is … a “novel” position – in the sense that I’d anticipate to find it housed squarely within the ‘fiction’ section (and chagrining fan-fiction it is, at that).

However it got me thinking about the Rune and its likely meaning.

Now, the standard supposition has tended to be (on basis of the Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem) that it’s basically “Elk”

But that’s never quite seemed right to me – not least, as it ignores later ᛦ ‘Yr’ which one encounters within the Younger Futhark associated with Old Norse.

Tacitus, in his ‘Germania’ (XLIII) makes reference to a Germanic co-expression of what he would know as Castor & Pollux – that is, the Dioscuri, or as we would say in Sanskrit, the Divo Napatah / Nasatyas / Asvins.

Later texts call Them (the Germanic Faces to the Twins) Hengist & Horsa.

Here’s the Latin original for the passage from Tacitus:

“Apud Naharvalos antiquae religionis lucus ostenditur. Praesidet sacerdos muliebri ornatu, sed deos interpretatione Romana Castorem Pollucemque memorant. Ea vis numini, nomen Alcis. nulla simulacra, nullum peregrinae superstitionis vestigium; ut fratres tamen, ut iuvenes venerantur.”

These deifics are the “Alcis” mentioned there … and this is often interpreted via way of that Proto-Germanic which supposedly informs *Algiz , and meaning ‘Elk’. [Per Kroonen, the Proto-Germanic should be *Algi-, and he also cites an *Elha(n)- as an “ablauting variant” for the aforementioned and “with the same meaning.]

Which would make the Alcis the ‘Elk-Brothers’.

Except as we know … that isn’t Castor & Pollux – nor the Asvins, Who are (in addition to the Sons of Dyaus / Rudra / Dios- / Odin [this one is a bit looser attested, evidently euhemerized post-Christianization accounts ‘telescoping’ things to insert generations with a now-human ‘Woden’]) rather overtly Horse Twins.

Hengist & Horsa, remember?

Even in Germanic.

(Hell, Especially in Germanic .. and Vedic – as attested right there in the Names ! ‘Hengist’, effectively means ‘Stallion’; and ‘Asvins’ – ‘Asva’ would be ‘Horse’, with ‘Ashvin’ being effectively ‘Cavalier’ )

Now, to be fair and sure, I can see how one might nevertheless manage to have ‘Horse-Twins’ that are also somehow ‘Elk’ / ‘Stags’ etc. … thanks to the fantastic find from Pazyryk viz. the Scythian ‘Horse-Antlers’, and my longrunning thoughts viz. Reindeer (& Maruts) in such regard.

So on the one hand, yes, in that archaic context – horses ‘dressed up’ to look rather ‘stag-like’ or ‘reindeer-resemblant’ were evidently a thing. For (at least) one Indo-European culture – and potentially with some level of ‘resonancy’ for this turning up within the traditions of at least one other.

Yet I am not personally aware of any substantive contemplation for the ‘Horse Twins’ in such an antlered, Stag/Reindeer regard, in various (other) IE spheres.

But another (and to my mind, rather better) prospect presents itself. One which helps us to much more aptly make sense not only of the Divine Twins in question in the context of that which Tacitus has told us – but which also enables us to make a quite powerful sense for the Rune oft-held to be correlate to Their designation therein.

Look at the context within which these ‘Alcis’ are alleged to occur:

“The Nahanarvali are the proud possessors of a grove of immemorial sanctity. The presiding priest wears feminine attire, but the gods they speak of in connection with it are, to give them their Roman names, Castor and Pollux ; their attributes are similar, the name by which they are known is the Alci. Images of them there are none, nor is there any trace of their worship having had a foreign origin ; nevertheless, the people adore them as youthful heroes, and as brothers.”
[Germania XLII in his edition, Townshend translation (1894)];

“Among these last is shown a grove of immemorial sanctity. A priest in female attire has the charge of it. But the deities are described in Roman language as Castor and Pollux. Such, indeed, are the attributes of the divinity, the name being Alcis. They have no images, or, indeed, any vestige of foreign superstition, but it is as brothers and as youths that the deities are worshipped.”
[Germania XLIII in their edition, Church & Brodribb translation (1942 rep.)]

The key words there being (in Latin) “memorant” and “numini”. Which, understandably, have generally been taken directly as the Naharnavali ‘speaking of’ the Gods there and thusly known by that name.

However I think that’s not quite correct.

Instead, I suspect what has happened is that Tacitus (or his intermediate interlocutor(s)) had slightly misunderstood something.

And that in fact, it was the Sacred Grove Itself [where the Divinities would, of course, be found] which was referenced under that name.

‘Numen’ is, after all, a rather ‘broad’ term – ‘Divinity’ is a good translation, but with all the breadth which that entails: ‘Divine Presence’ would certainly seem to be within the realm of possibilities.

And the very next passage of Tacitus has him using “Harii” – a term which Should probably be understood viz. PGer *Harja etc. to mean ‘Raiding Party’, ‘Warband’, etc. … as an ethnonym – *The* Harii – so evidently there is precedent for this kind of mixup within his work.

Even afore we consider my oft-repeated observation viz. Odin as Mercury in Tacitus having seemingly resulted, likewise, from a misapprehension for something like Proto-Germanic *Ermunaz (Pokorny has *Ermana- / *Irmino ), whence Saxon “Irmin” (and Irminsul), Old Norse Jǫrmunr, as *being* ‘Hermes’ somewhat directly – an error also made in slightly different fashion by Widukind in his Res Gestae Saxonicae most of a millennium later.

So – if Proto-Germanic *Algiz (and its Rune – ᛉ ) *are indeed* cognate with the ‘Alcis’ referred to by Tacitus (and the people claiming *Algiz ought mean ‘Elk’ tend to believe that it *is* …) …

What does it mean if ‘Alcis’ in fact refers to the Sacred Grove?

Here’s Kroonen again – with the pair of terms which I believe rather more .. germane to the situation than ‘Elk’.

First up: PGer. *algōjan- , which he ascribes a meaning of “to protect” to, and a PIE forerunner of *h₂elk-eh₂-ie-, linking the Proto-Germanic (and Old English ‘Ealgian’, ‘Algian’, i.e. ‘to defend’) with fellow IE cognates of Sanskrit ‘rákṣati’ (“to protect, guard, deal”, per Kroonen), and Ancient Greek ‘ἀλέξω’ (i.e. ‘alexo’ – as in ‘Alexander’, Hera Alexandros, etc.; Kroonen rendering ‘ἀλέξω’ as “to ward off, defend”, and noting slight morphological difference at the PIE level – *h₂lék-se-).

Second: PGer. *alh- , as in “temple” (Gothic ‘Alhs’, Old English ‘Ealh’), which he links to Lithuanian ‘Al̃kas’ (“(holy) grove on a hill’) and Latvian ‘ȩ̀lks’ (“idol”), but then suggests to have resulted from a ‘non-Indo-European’ *Alk-. To quote him directly:

“A Baltic-Germanic word with no clear IE cognates. The link with *h₂lek- ‘to ward off, defend’ (cf. *algōjan-) mentioned by Pokorny IEW: 32 is arbitrary. Given the root noun inflection, it is conceivable that the word was adopted from a local non-IE language by Germanic and Baltic after their arrival in Europe.”

We would, of course, rather strenuously disagree.

And would suggest that one disregard his comment about PGer *alh- , as in “temple”, linking with PIE *h₂lek- “to defend” as being merely “arbitrary” via way of dismissal.

It’s a classic case of a linguist figuring that because they can’t work out how the linguistically viable link makes semantic sense, that it’s therefore wrong all up. (I am also not quite sure why it is that he fails to make mention for “Alsos” (” ἄλσος”) / “Altis” (” Ἄλτις”; although with Liddell & Scott pointedly demarcating it as “Alq-ios” and linking this to the Gothic Ahls aforementioned), meaning respectively (Sacred) Grove, and that particular Sacred Grove of Zeus at Olympia as reported by Pausanias at V 10 1; it would certainly make the idea of a non-IE term from a culture specifically encountered and assimilated by the Germanic & Baltic spheres rather less plausible. Although perhaps it is the alternate prospect for a root along the lines of Pokorny’s *Al-2 viz. ‘To Grow’, ‘To Bear’ which has motivated its non-inclusion)

We know that archaic Indo-European religion was not a thing of ‘Temples’ – but rather, of the ‘Sacred Enclosure’, with a delineated boundary drawn & Fiends determinedly kept out therefrom.

This is where ‘Rakshasa’ in Sanskrit comes from, in fact – Rakṣa ( रक्ष ), Guard/Protect.

The idea being, of course, that the Rakshasas are what you’re guarding/protecting against , and which are to be kept out of the Ritual Enclosure.

That Ritual Enclosure being the space being protected – hence the fact the Nahanarvali are the custodians of this space … well, you see how it begins to fit together, in terms of why they might have been referring to the grove via ‘Alcis’ all up.

One might also, potentially, consider the foreparticle of the aforementioned Nasatyas [the Asvins, again] in light of its Hellenic cognate, Naos [ναός], i.e. ‘Temple’, and particularly the Sanctuary therein.

But I digress somewhat.

To return to the Sacred Groves of the Germanics … I had earlier observed that the Anglo-Saxon ‘Elk’ Rune ( ᛉ ) is not the only seeming descendant of the Proto-Germanic *Algiz : the other being, of course, ᛦ Ýr in the Younger Futhark, meaning ‘Yew’.

Why’s this pertinent?

Well, to start with something linguistic – Dr Alan Griffiths makes the following observation:

“A common approach to this problem has been to compare the AngloSaxon rune ᛉ to its Nordic counterpart ᛦ, ýr, […] which appears to be an inverted form of ᛉ. In the older fuþark ᛉ is taken to have represented the sound-value [ z ], which, in Germanic dialects, occurred finally, but never initially. In an Anglo-Saxon context, the rune appears to have been reassigned the value equivalent to x or ss. In Nordic dialects, however, [ z ] developed into an r with a palatal i-timbre, which is usually transcribed as [ R ] – a development probably completed by the middle of the sixth century. As for the Nordic name of ᛦ, some scholars argue that this was taken from the rune which ᛉ, or its inverted form ᛦ, originally followed in the older fuþark sequence, namely [ ᛇ ], *īhwaz [yew] > *īwaz > *īwaR > *īwR > *iuR > ýR. […] Ultimately, palatal r (i.e. R) was assimilated with liquid r, and by the eleventh century, the ᛦ-rune came to be used for [ y ], apparently in conformity with the initial [ y ] of its name ýr. The meaning of ON ýr was ‘yew’, and the stanza describing this name in the Icelandic rune-poem refers to a bow made of yew: bendur bogi [bent bow].”
[Note, I’ve had to slightly amend some of the punctuation in order to be able to reproduce the above passage on our platforms – and also due to the Eihwaz which he uses being … around the opposite way to the conventional as found within the Elder Futhark, making reproduction using the textual elements available to me a non-starter]

The key part to the above, potentially, being – “In Nordic dialects, however, [ z ] developed into an r with a palatal i-timbre, which is usually transcribed as [ R ] – a development probably completed by the middle of the sixth century. […] and by the eleventh century, the ᛦ-rune came to be used for [ y ], apparently in conformity with the initial [ y ] of its name ýr.”

Effectively, the sound-value of PGer *Algiz as a letter … may have turned into the sound-value communicated via Old Norse ‘Yr’.

If so … this handily explains the shape resemblance.

I am not in a position to assess the merit (or otherwise) of his assertion, but it would certainly make interesting (structural) sense.

What I am rather more qualified to do, however, is to assess matters of theology. And upon this score, we would ask ourselves … is there some logical reason that a term associated with a Sacred Grove might come to mean a Yew Tree, particularly Post-Christianization ?

Let’s go back to the Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem (here, in the Jones rendition (1967)):

[Eoh] byþ ūtan unsmēþe trēow,
heard hrūsan fæst, hyrde fȳres,
wyrtrumun underwreþyd, wyn on ēþle.
[Jones’ text basically has the relevant rune represented via a “Z”]

“Yew is on the outside a rough-barked tree;
Firm and fast in the earth, the keeper of fire
Is sustained by roots, is the pride of the realm.”
[Jones translation, 35-37]

What he’s describing there is the Anglo-Saxon iteration for PGer. *Eihwaz .

There are, of course, a few reasons one might advance for the Yew as “hȳrde” (‘herder/protector/keeper’) of Fires. (And not least in light for Pokorny’s reconstruction for the root underpinning ‘Yr’ – PIE *ei-³ – as meaning “reddish”, and producing an array of further potentially ‘fire’ relevant senses)

I personally suspect that it may be for the similar reason that one finds Ullr to have His dwelling at Ýdalir [the Yew-Dale(s)’; Grimnismal 5] … Ullr having some very interesting associations in this regard.

Let’s take a look.

First up, Ullr is mentioned at Grimnismal 42 in connexoin with Fire. Here’s the literal translation (with original) up on Voluspa dot org.

Ullar hylli
hefr ok allra goða
hverr er tekr fyrstr á funa,
því at opnir heimar
verða of ása sonum,
þá er hefja af hvera.

Ullr’s favour
he has, and all the gods’,
he who touches first the fire, (51)
because open worlds
become to the sons of the Æsir, (52)
when cauldrons are taken off.

[The footnoting, in case you were wondering:
51 ‘Dronke has amended this to ‘er hver tekr’, read as “he who puts a cauldron (hverr) first on the fire”, the opposite meaning.’
52 ‘ Dronke translates these two lines “because realms are laid waste round the Æsir’s sons”.’]

We would contemplate, for reasons that ought be readily apparent to those with an understanding for Vedic ritual metaphysica (or, for that matter, its Hellenic etc. correlates), that this notion for “open[ing]” the Worlds” correlates to the essential role for the (Consecrated, Imbued, Alive) Fire of the Altar as ‘Conduit’ to those other places where one would find the Gods to be.

Alternatively, perhaps, the intended sense is ‘the other way around’ – ‘Heimar’ may be usefully related (semantically – the ‘pure linguistic’ side of things is not something I’ve seen properly attested) to what we would term in Sanskrit ‘kṣétra’ (क्षेत्र); for our purposes, a division of space such as a temple precinct (or, perhaps, ritual enclosure). Hence, the notion that the Heimar ‘open’ … well, perhaps it is that the sanctified spaces wherein these Rites are conducted which ‘opens’ to allow accession via the Divinities?

Now, what the ‘Sons of the Aesir’ could refer to … well, that is a bit of a tricky one (not least due to the plural, indefinite plural at that, utilized there viz. “ása” – that said, were it in singular, we’d still potentially have questions as to which ‘sort’ of ‘Sons of The God’ in question were to be referred to). One would suspect that it’s something along the lines of ‘Priest-kind’. Alternatively, if the understanding for the ‘opening of the Heimar’ is taken to mean the relevant Divine Realm(s) (and World(s) of the Ancestors, etc. one assumes, perhaps, as well) ; although if the ‘Heimar’ concept refers to the ‘down here’ rather than the ‘up there’, then correspondingly one would presume the ‘Sons of the Aesir’ ought thus mean the Gods (or Their Emissaries) – effectively in much the same manner which “manna sonum” (“Sons of Men”) is utilized in the preceding verse to refer to humankind.

Although that said … there is another prospect. The Grimnismal is, after all, an effective ‘contest’ played out between Odin and His Wife, Frigg – one which, I would suggest, was ‘originally’ over the respective virtues and character of two ‘foster-sons’ raised by the Gods in question: these being the brothers Geirrǫðr [Geirroth] and Agnarr who had been adopted and raised by Óðinn and Frigg respectively (in the guise of a peasant couple). This is certainly how the prose introduction seems to set things up (indeed, it’s Odin prodding Frigg about how Her fosterling has turned out in comparison to His which sets off the dispute and the bet between Them) … and yet per the last line to that part of the text it’s also not at all what’s going on. Instead, the last line of such introduces a different Agnarr, who’s Geirroth’s own son and thusly the nephew of the Agnarr raised by Frigg (a situation seemingly corroborated by the second verse, wherein Agnarr’s impending ascension to the Kingship in place of Geirroth is declared, with mention made for “Geirröðar sonr” (‘Geirroth’s Son’) as who’s going to rule).

I would suggest that something has potentially shifted, perhaps a ‘correction’ on the part of the compiler who wrote the introduction in order to help reconcile the ‘facts of the narrative’ with that certain ‘fact of the text’. That is to say – that it’s a contest of virtue between Geirroth and Agnarr, with Geirroth and Agnarr being brothers fostered by the two Gods Whose contest it is (and therefore Whose ‘parenting’ is assessed) [these being the ‘facts of the narrative’], yet with Agnarr expressly referred to as “Geirroth’s Son” towards the outset [the ‘fact of the text’]. And so it is that we end up with two Agnarr figures (even if only in the prose introduction), ‘brother’ turning into (literal) ‘son’ to make it so. How to explain the “Geirröðar sonr” of the second verse? A figurative ‘son’ – that is to say, Agnarr being declared Geirroth’s legitimate successor (rather than, say, a brother knocking his sibling off the throne and interfering with a patrilineal succession of a more orderly and ‘conventional’ nature).

Hence, “Sons of the Aesir” (“ása sonum”) could refer to the two foster-sons thusly involved (i.e. Agnarr & Geirroth), as these are fostered sons to two Aesir. Perhaps a similar thing underpins the “sigtíva sonum” [‘Sons of the Victorious Tivar’ – ‘Tivar’ being ‘-Tyr’ in plural, i.e. ‘The Gods’] at verse 45, for whom the ‘visions’ have been spoken – although we shall have to return to that another time (along with just which direction the “vilbjörg” was ‘intended’, and what the ‘aid / sustenance’ in question might be).

The next part to verse 45 declares “öllum ásum” – ‘All the Aesir’ – shall come “Ægis bekki á” .. with this often interpreted as “Aegir’s Benches”, and yet I would contemplate the other ‘Bekki’, ‘Streams’ here. They arrive at or to Aegir’s ‘drinks’ (as in, drinking-event); something most readily readable as the ritual offering of libations (perhaps this is that which is meant via the “hefja af hvera” – ‘hefting (lifting/raising) of cauldrons/kettles’ – of its ultimate verse; the pouring-forth of brewed offering?).

But let’s get back to our major thrust of rendering.

The aforementioned verse 42 declares that the ‘favour of Ullr’ will be attained by the first to ‘touch’ or ‘take’ the flame, with the positive outcome also seemingly connected to the lifting off of the cauldrons in the last line to the verse. Given that Odin is portrayed as being in rather .. uncomfortable confinement too close to the fires (to the point His mantle is burning), implicitly under such cauldron(s) … then the idea being that the man who relieves His discomfort shall thusly be the one to obtain “Ullar hylli”, the ‘favour[towards] of Ullr’ presents one very obvious prospect.

And we shall return to this soon.

Second, for some reason Ullr doesn’t just show up in relation to Yew – but also to Ash (as in Ash-Tree). And also, as it happens, within the specific context of a Tree amidst a Grove.

As applies the former (that situation for association with the Ash) this is, perhaps, less surprising than it might first seem – per Kroonen, the Proto-Germanic root underpinning our ‘Yew’ terminology, *īwa- , has cognates which mean *slightly* different things. He mentions Ancient Greek “ὄα” and “ὄη” viz. “elderberry tree, mountain ash”, as well as Latin “ūva” for “branch of grapes; rasins” (Mees has ‘īva’ here for “bunch of grapes, vine”, also citing Armenian ‘aygi’ (‘grapevine’), and Hittite “GIŠe(y)a(n)-” “sacred evergreen”). Matasović presents Proto-Celtic *iwo- as “shaft, yew”, noting also the prospect viz. Greek “óa”, which he has as “service-tree” (i.e. ‘Sorbus’ – this Latin term being from, per Pokorny, *ser-3 or *sor-, meaning “red” or “reddish”). We might, perhaps, contemplate whether the situation of something strongly linked to Dionysus (viz. the Grapes) being etymologically linked is significant for reasons that shall become apparent in due course. I would also personally ponder whether a *figurative* linkage of conceptry viz. the Bilva of Shiva might be pertinent, but more upon that, perhaps, some other time.

(As with my suspicion that the Proto-Celtic *Eburos purported to mean “Yew” (a presumption rejected by Schrijver on rather logical grounds) ought instead mean (Mountain) Ash, in light of its ethnonymic utilization in constellation with a certain pattern both Hellenic and Germanic – albeit with support for this potentially requiring ‘Melia’ to encompass *both* ‘Ash’ and ‘Mountain Ash’ … or, at least, for another European IE language’s ‘Mountain Ash’ to likewise have ‘Ash’ within it. Statius’ Thebaid [IV 281] featuring both “fraxinus” (‘Ash’) and “orno” (‘Mountain Ash’) with relation to the relevant ethnogenesis may assist there.)

But let us return to Ullr more directly.

Within the Skáldskaparmál we encounter the following:

“Lundr, svá kvað Hallfreðr vandræðaskáld:

Askþollum stendr Ullar
austr at miklu trausti
rækilundr inn ríki
randfárs brumaðr hári.

Hér er ok þollr nefndr.”

Which, per the Brodeur translation:

“Grove, as sang Hallfredr Troublous-Skald:

The Mighty Grove and Faithful
Of the Shield-Murderer, budded
With hair, stands in the Eastlands
Safe with Ullr’s Ash-Warriors.

Here he is also called Ash.”

Or, per Faulkes:

“Grove; Hallfrod the troublesome poet said this:

The powerful shield-danger-[sword-]wielding grove with
hair for foliage provides Ull’s ash [shield] firs [warriors] in
the east with great security.

Here the name fir is also used.”

‘Lundr’ is presented as ‘Grove’ in Brodeur’s translation (and also in that of Faulkes, as one can see), and whilst Askþollum has also been interpreted as ‘ship’ (see Heslop’s presentation for the actual verse in its original context, viz. the Hákonardrápa), it would not do to reduce it down entirely to that sense therein.

Insofar as I suspect rather strongly that the basis for the metaphor being deployed in there is not simply for a mere collection of trees … but a rather particular sort of Grove, indeed.

Something, perhaps, rather along the lines of that which was intended via the PGer. *Alh … and that Ancient Greek “ἄλσος” (‘Alsos’), meaning “Sacred Grove” (which, amusingly enough, I’d just happened across again due to following up a passage of Nonnus’ Dionysiaca wherein the “Groves” in question also should seem to feature the Meliai (‘Ash-Nymphs’) we had briefly referenced afore), connected in Scott & Liddell’s Greek-English Lexicon (who cross-references Gothic ‘Alhs’, ‘Temple’) also to both an alleged “alq-ios”, but more especially an “Ἄλτις” (‘Altis’) that was the “sacred precinct of Zeus at Olympia”.

It would be interesting indeed, I think, to contemplate that verse’s reference to the ‘Ash-Trees’ of Ullr standing in the East (“austr”) in light of what we know as to archaic Indo-European precepts for the proper orientations of the sacred space.

In both Roman Temples (per Vitruvius’ de Architectura [IV 5 1 & 9 1]) and Vedic ritual enclosures, the idea was to have the Deific(s) pointedly installed in the East.

We are also well aware of the situation for wooden ‘Murtis’ amidst the Germanics – indeed, I have long wondered whether the enigmatic concept extolled at Havamal 49, viz. Odin’s apparent clothing (as in, it’s Odin’s clothing (noun), apparently, with which He is apparently clothing (verb)) of two ‘tree-men’ (“trémönnum”) is in some fashion fairly directly correlate to how one ‘invests’ and ‘adorns’ a Murti in the Hindusphere as part of the processes of ‘imbuement’ which render the deific depiction fit for ritualistic utilization.

Might the metaphor of the Hákonardrápa’s first verse be one of Hákon et co ‘phrased’ in terms of the incumbents of such a Sacred Grove ?

For reasons that are soon to become most readily apparent, we would also make mention for the situation which one observes at, say, Shatapatha Brahmana III 7 2 – wherein one encounters Eleven (that prominently Roudran number, indeed) Posts (Yūpaikādaśinī – ‘Eka Dashini’ for ‘One and Ten’, Yupa for the Post) of Wood, which are arrayed, per Woodward, “at the eastern boundary of the sacrificial space”.

These Eleven Posts are said to be of Vajra saliency – and play a significant role in warding the site against demonic would-be intruders to the ritual enclosure (a twelfth post is instructed to remain ‘rough-hewn’, per Eggeling’s translation, lying upon its side, to act as a rather threatening ‘pointedly drawn but not yet fired’ thunderbolt Arrow (‘Iṣu’ – ‘yatheṣurāyatānastā’ referring to it being ‘as an arrow, drawn, ready-to-fire’).

Could these be those ‘Ash-Warriors’ which Brodeur’s translation invites us to contemplate ?

“Randfárs”, i.e. ‘Shield-Harm’, is taken by Heslop (and, for that matter, Faulkes) to read ‘Sword’ (and thence, per Faulkes, we have a ‘Sword-wielding Grove’, apparently).

And certainly, we encounter within the Yajurvedic skein, the notion for a ‘Sword’, of sorts (the “Wooden Sword”, as Keith puts it – the Sphya), which is likewise a ‘Thunderbolt’ and recurrently spoken of in visual relation to the Sacrificial Post (for instance, at TS II 1 5 7, II 1 7 7, II 1 8 1), and is also utilized itself as a projectile-weapon (as at SBr I 2 4 – and with oblique comparison to the ‘Arrow’ (“śara”) utilized by the ‘Rājanya’ (i.e. ‘Royal’, ‘Warrior-Aristocracy’) caste, effectively the (ritual context) Brahminical equivalent thereto).

Yet what of the ‘Ship’ inference for the verse’s intended ambit? Well … yes.

This comes to us in two fashions.

First up – there is a perhaps unsurprising archaic saliency within the Vedic sphere for the ritual enclosure (or key spaces therein) to be spoken of and conceptualized as … a ship (c.f. for instance Ait. Br. I 13 & VI 21; SBr II 3 3 15-16, IV 2 5 10).

And second … the Skáldskaparmál features the following detail:

“Skjöldr er ok kallaðr skip Ullar eða kennt til fóta Hrungnis, er hann stóð á skildi. Á fornum skjöldum var títt at skrifa rönd þá, er baugr var kallaðr, ok eru við þann baug skildir kenndir.”

Which, per Brodeur’s translation:

“the shield is also called Ship of Ullr, or periphrased in terms of Hrungnir’s feet, since he stood upon his shield. On ancient shields it was customary to paint a circle, which was called the ‘ring,’ and shields are called in metaphors of that ring.”

Now, think about that for a second. What we have here is the comment for something intimately bound up with the concept of ‘Protect’ – the Shield – being referred to in especial relation to Ullr. It would seem too simplistic – to my mind, at any rate – to suggest that it’s merely because one might, perhaps, find a shield made of the wood with which Ullr is associated (notwithstanding the potential talismanic effect of protection which might, assumedly, be extended therefrom if one were to?). Instead, I think it’s something to be beheld in that dual suite of referency – for the Shield as Ship of Ullr, and also that notion of having upon it, this ‘Ship of Ullr’, a ritual demarcation of a border, a boundary through that encirclement, that enclosure of space upon it with the line thusly drawn. Just as, funnily enough, one would do for a ritual enclosure (quite directly – one divides it from the outside world and the threats of demonic adversaries through precisely such demarcation; it is through this that the space is both symbolically as well as literally made).

The Shield – the ancient, magically empowered shield, that is – should seem to be drawing (literally drawing, as it happens) most directly from this concept for the metaphysically protected warding for the Sacred Space that is the Ritual Enclosure; a ‘resonance’ for said Ritual Enclosure being just exactly what is rendered upon its surface. That Ritual Enclosure being the Space Protected, the Protective Space – if we recall our linguistic contemplation from earlier viz. Proto-Germanic *Alh- relative to Proto-Indo-European *h₂elk- (viz. defence). And that Sacred Space thusly protected, as we have seen via Vedic evidence, being construable as a Ship … the Ritual Enclosure evidently as ‘Ship of Ullr’ helping to explain and anticipate why the Shield should so specifically be that of He. Because it’s what He is being called upon to be ‘within’ and to ‘protect’.

Hence, assumedly, the cryptic line of the Atlakviða (32):

“Svá gangi þér, Atli, sem þú við Gunnar áttir
eiða oft of svarða ok ár of nefnda,
at sól inni suðrhöllu ok at Sigtýs bergi,
hölkvi hvílbeðjar ok at hringi Ullar.”

Which, per Bellows’ translation:

“It shall go with thee, Atli, | as with Gunnar thou heldest
The oaths ofttimes sworn, | and of old made firm,
By the sun in the south, | by Sigtyr’s mountain,
By the horse of the rest-bed, | and the ring of Ull.”

It should seem to me suspiciously resonant to feature this ‘Ring of Ull’ in amidst these other elements (or, rather, these other elements mentioned afore it being ‘in amidst’ it, I suspect) within the context for an oath-swearing and of great solemnity.

Why so?

Consider that which we would behold within a Vedic ritual enclosure. We should likely encounter an ‘Axis Mundi’ resonance – viz. a Sacral Post, and of course linked with the Sky Father deific. Woodard, in his ‘Indo-European Sacred Space – Vedic And Roman Cult’ makes reference to the ShivLing within the context of a broader Indo-European ritual understanding for a stone pillar atop a raised space: he cites the Lingam upon a “pyramid within the royal residence”, the Irish “stone of Fál, stationed on the hill of Tara”, and the Terminus marker upon the Capitoline Hill within the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. He then goes on to (correctly) link the Lingam to the Yūpa (the major Vedic Sacral Post element), observing also that “Like the linga of Śiva, the yūpa stands as an axis mundi”, which he re-designates as a “columna mundi”. He also notes the powerful potency for the Yūpa in this ‘Axis Mundi’ / ‘Columna Mundi’ position for its “providing access to the entire cosmos”. Rather like a certain Tree, one might perhaps suggest … a World(s) Tree – with which we (and no doubt many others) have elsewhere connected the evocative descriptions for the (similarly Shaivite salient) Skambhá (again, such a Pillar) at AV-S X 7-8 to. (Woodard also – again, correctly, and I am pleased to be able to reference somebody else rather than simply my own insights upon this score – connects this to the ‘Lingodbhava’ occurrence for Shiva; and we would also add, for variety, that ‘Lingam’ referenced for Liber by the shrill St. Augustine (City of God 7.21.2–4; Varro ARD 262 [42] Cardauns), the no doubt similar structure attested for Dionysus and Hades (Same God), per Heraclitus [F 15], and various points with regard to the Omphalos Stone, the ‘Agyieus’ Form of Apollo, &c. – perhaps the Sword-upon-Mound of so-called ‘Scythian Ares’ might fit in here, as well)

So … a ‘Mountain of SigTyr’ (i.e. Odin) – could this, perhaps, be something similar to these Hills and Pyramids linked to Shiva and to Jupiter? Certainly, the ‘Axis Mundi’ being a Mountain and/or a Post – a Tree, in fact – makes such a thing feel quite plausible. After all, is not Rudra the Lord Who Is In Tree(s) [see various Sri Rudram hailings to this effect]? Is not Yggdrasil that ‘Steed of Yggr’ [Odin] and the Tree-like Sacral Post declared to be as the ‘Rathena’ (‘Ratha’ – i.e. ‘Chariot’, ‘Conveyance’) for the Brāhmaṇā (SBr I 2 4 2 – the direct analogy is with the (war-)chariot of the Rājanya warrior-aristocrat)?

We would presume that this must also be that which underpins the intriguing archaic saliency for Dionysus as the Tree-Zeus, per the well-remarked upon point of Pherekydes [F 178] concerning ‘Nysai’ as ‘Trees’ (said term also being able to signify ‘Nymphs’, per Cook and West (although I would not go quite as far as the latter) … in much the same way, one assumes, as ‘Meliae’ doing its double-duty for both the Ash-Trees and Ash-Nymphs – a situation of syzygy of direct pertinence when it comes to the libations / propitiations to a certain Ash ‘Columna Mundi’ as carried out by such in the Nordic model). That ‘Nysa’, as Heyschius is renowned to have said, being a “mountain not confined to any one place” [translation as given in Mojsik] – a remark of great perspicacity (intentional or otherwise) if, in fact, it was a feature of the mythic-mesocosmic ‘geography’ of the sacral enclosure which was actually at the root for the thing.

And yes, yes – ‘Tree’ and ‘Mountain’ have a perhaps (un)surprisingly strong suite of coterminity within the Indo-European symbolic / theological understandings.

Where we are upon firmer ground as applies the notion for a ‘Post’ or a ‘Pillar’ for Odin is, of course, the ‘Irminsul’ … which, interestingly enough, shares its fundamental PIE root (*er-³, per Pokorny; or *h₃er-, per Rix) with Ancient Greek ‘ὄρος’ (‘Oros’ – Mountain).

Widukind’s ‘Res Gestae Saxonicae’ describes the construction of one for a Victory-Rite (assumedly one might also encounter more ‘geo-fixed’ exemplars elsewhere in Grove formulation) as follows:

“Mane autem facto ad orientalem portam ponunt aquilam, aramque victoriae construentes secundum errorem paternum sacra sua propria veneratione venerati sunt: nomine Martem, effigie columpnarum imitantes Herculem, loco Solem, quem Graeci appellant Apollinem. Ex hoc apparet aestimationem illorum utcumque probabilem, qui Saxones originem duxisse putant de Graecis, quia Hirmin vel Hermis Graece Mars dicitur; quo vocabulo ad laudem vel ad vituperationem usque hodie etiam ignorantes utimur.” [I, 12]

Which, in the recent Bachrach translation:

“When morning came, the Saxons placed an eagle before the eastern gate, and constructed an altar of victory following the error of their fathers [i.e. the ancestral pre-Christian Germanic religion]. They worshipped their divinities in their own manner. In worshipping one of them, called Mars, they imitate Hercules with an image of columns. They worship this deity in the place of the Sun, whom the Greeks called Apollo. From this, it seems likely that those, who think that the Saxons had their origin among the Greeks, have a point because the one whom we call Mars, is called Hirmin or Hermis in Greek. We use that word up to the present day both to praise and to condemn, although we do not know what it really means.” [I, 12]

As I have often pointed out – this extract is rather remarkably useful for a number of reasons … one of which being showing just how the misidentification of Odin with Mercury in Tacitus seems likely to have actually come about. As in, the theonymic which we encounter as Saxon ‘Irmin’ or Old Norse ‘Jǫrmunr’ [Þul Óðins 8], from Proto-Germanic *Ermunaz (or, per Pokorny, *Ermana- / *Irmino), and rendering as ‘The Great’ or ‘The Powerful’ … gets *misheard* as being effectively ‘Hermes’ – as Widukind has it, “Hirmin or Hermis in Greek”, which is quite clearly not the correct ‘interpretatio’ for Mars, let alone Odin. The situation of a post or pillar, perhaps recalling the Hellenic ἕρμᾰ / ἕρμᾰτᾰ (‘herma’ / ‘hermata’) – may have additionally confounded things.

However our main purpose here is to observe that the Sacral Post being raised is a feature for the archaic Germanic ritual space. This is what Widukind means viz. “they imitate Hercules with an image of columns” – as Strabo had phrased Alexander the Great’s somewhat similar efforts in India [III 5 5 of ‘Geography’], it is the raising of columns which is the (deed done in) emulation of Herakles (“μιμούμενος τὸν Ἡρακλέα”) … and also of Dionysus (” καὶ τὸν Διόνυσον”). As Strabo then puts it – “ἦν μὲν δὴ τὸ ἔθος τοῦτο.” (per Hamilton & Falconer’s translation: “That this custom existed, then, cannot be doubted.”) Quite.

We also observe that Widukind presents the deific, ‘Irmin’ (i.e. Odin) , as being “loco Solem, quem Graeci appellant Apollinem”. We would agree with the Apollo ‘interpretatio’, as it happens (a Famous Archer, indeed!) – although one can also take things rather more simply than that here: the deity being “in the place [loco] of the Sun [Solem]”. And while I have previously been rather critical of Grimm seeming to misinterpret the portion viz. Herakles (i.e. Grimm appears, per the Stallybrass translation, to have “effigie columpnarum imitantes Herculem” stating the Column as connoting Hercules rather than the Saxons acting in imitation for Hercules through its raising) … he may be (partially) correct with the comment viz. the structure linked to the God, the “altar” being “built ad orientalem portam”. We would just slightly tweak it – to resonate with our earlier point viz. the God installation at the East, the place of the Rising Sun , within both Vedic and Roman ritual-sacred space.

Speaking of ‘Sun(s)’, the element next to this SigTyr’s Mountain is “sól inni suðrhöllu” – the Sun either ‘South-inclined’, or , perhaps, the ‘Southern Hall’ (taking ‘höllu’ as a formulation of ‘hǫll’ etc., a la “höllu himna” [‘Hall of Heavens’] as at Drápa af Máríugrát 28 6, or the “Herjans höllu” [‘Herjan’s Hall’ – Odin’s Hall, Valhalla] encountered at Krákumál 29 3) (at an outside prospect, the underlying sense to the ‘Incline(d)’, with reference to a ‘Hill’ or ‘Stone’, we might ponder the hill shape of a fire-altar, … but that might be stretching things).

Why do I reference this ? Well, as I am running rather lower on energy – we shall let Woodard take over the narration:

” At the southern edge of the enclosure is the third fire, the Dakṣiṇāgni, standing guard against a possible attack by evil forces; its shape is a semicircle and it is identified as “the atmosphere” (being positioned south of and at about the midpoint of the east–west axis that passes through the other two fires, it stands between earth and heaven; ŚB 12.4.1.3).

Dumézil perceived that these three principal fires of the Vedic sacrificial area have remarkable correspondences at Rome, both in terms of the altars and sacrificial practices affiliated with individual temples […] , but also—and more significantly—in terms of the
sacred architecture of Rome. […]

Finally, the Dakṣiṇāgni matches the flame of the temple of Volcanus, situated beyond the city walls (on this requirement see Plutarch, Quaest. Rom. 47; Vitruvius 1.7.1).

[Dumézil], apparently referring to the ancient Palatine pomerium (a sacred boundary beyond which the urban auspices, auspicia urbana, could not be taken; […]) notes in addition another liminal and primitive area dedicated to Volcanus:

. . . there was a still more ancient place of worship, and, before the incorporation of the Capitol into the city, this place had been located, if not outside the city limits, at least at them. At the foot of the southeast flank of the Capitol, between the Comitium and the Forum, there was a small open space, called the Volcanal, with an altar open to the sky, the area Volcani. Here the devouring fire mounted guard at one of the extremities of the Forum, and to it were entrusted the duties of mystical cleansing, particularly in connection with the misdeeds of its celestial brother, the fulmen.”

With relation to this, we would note the significance for the Mārjālīya (the name itself quite directly refers to ‘Cleansing / Cleaning’), and likewise of a Southern situation within the ritual enclosure space. As Woodard phrases it, the ” Mārjāliya hearth is used for the cleansing of
the ritual utensils (ŚB 14.2.2.43)”, with this not simply being a fire-space – but also a covered one, a “hut […] with its own fire hearth” per Heesterman’s comment upon the subject.

Might this be something to do with that ‘Sun in the Southern Hall’ of the Atlakviða?

And, given the ‘Solar Afterworld’ typology of the archaic Indo-European cosmology – does this likewise provide a ‘bridging point’ for the traditions? Certainly, at SBr IX 4 3 8 we encounter undertakings at the Mārjālīya for the Pitrs, the (Fore)Fathers / Ancestors – as Eggeling’s translation puts it: “Six [bricks] (he places) on the Mārjālīya,–these are the six seasons, the Fathers; for the seasons, the Fathers , indeed, heaped up (a rampart) round that (fire) from the south. This one lies to the south of those (other hearths) […]”. And we have also previously observed the decidedly ‘Solar’ seeming dimensions to that Golden Hall of the Nordic/Germanic celestial post-mortem, as well.

We would also, of course, observe the salient situation for the South spacing in two other fashions – first, as applies that ‘Guardian’ typology, at TS VI 2 7 5 we encounter the Salavrka clade. These are, depending upon whether it is the Sālāvṛka (सालावृक) or Śālāvṛka (शालावृक) which is spoken of, the Wolves of the [Ritual[ Enclosure (‘of the Boundary’, indeed!) … or the Temple Wolves, respectively. This, per my reading for the relevant portion for the Ynglinga Saga, should seem resonant with the ‘Hofgylðir’ [“Temple-Wolf”] encountered within the major recension for the Ynglinga Saga (21) … and should prove additional relevant to our purposes in light of the fact that when the (soon-to-be-warm-for-the-rest-of-his-life) king Olaf (“the tree-feller”) is being sacrificed to Odin (“gáfu hann Óðni”), it is via this stated vector that Olaf is devoured. As Odin is Agni (Agni being Rudra – and note also Agni’s deed with the Raptor (Shyena) Form to bring the Empowering Elixir, relative to Odin’s Eagle-styled cognate feat … inter many alia), and Agni is within a Ritual Flame, you see how this begins to fit together. We would also observe the similarly Sentinel ‘Temple Wolf’ phenomenon attested for Apollo [c.f. Aelian De Natura Animalium X 26 G; Pausanias X 14]; and, for that matter, the canine-envisaged Agni-Rudra Aspect that is Vastospati – the protector of the ritual enclosure.

It would be interesting, perhaps, to contemplate viz. that ‘Volcanal’ / ‘Volcani’ designation for the Roman correlate, this situation as to the Salavrkas and our Temple Wolf. Why so? A rather obscure etymological proposal for the root to ‘Vulcan’ – which links it (perhaps unsurprisingly) to Sanskrit ‘Ulkā’ (उल्का – ‘Torch’ or ‘Meteor’) [per Paul Kretschmer’s ‘Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache’ – “Lat. Volcānus von einem verlorenen *volcā Feur = skr. ulkā́ Feuerbrand.” ] … and from there, to the Proto-Indo-European for ‘Wolf’: *ulkʷ-o- (or, per the reconstruction utilized by V.I. Abaev, *wolkʷos : Abaev presenting an intriguing apparent Alan (i.e. post-Scythian-ish) smith-figure by the name of Wærgon as a suitably obvious exemplar for his illustration [and to this, we would add with further interest the observation by one Torsten Pedersen with relation to the “khrusoworgos”, “gold-smith” [“Ku-Ru-So-Wo-Ko”, per Davies in Colloquium Mycenaeum] occurrent within Linear B]; and with space for the comment of one Lopes Filho as to a potential *wlkwonos for the underpinning to ‘Vulcanus’, effectively rendering Him, as Lopes-Filho put it … “Lord of the She-Wolf”. Or, you know, Vastospati, for reasons I intend to explain at some other time).

Perhaps this assists in explicating that most interesting remark of Aelian elsewhere in the passage aforementioned [X 26] that the Wolf is the ‘Beloved of the Sun’ (Scholfield translation, “λέγουσι δὲ φίλον Ἡλίῳ εἶναι αὐτόν”); it certainly does little harm to the observed (potential) overlap of both those terms for the Wolf and those for Light which one finds within the Ancient Greek and with affixion to Apollo (and also Zeus) in particular – λύκειος (‘Lykeios’ – ‘(of the) Wolf’ / ‘Wolfy’, or ‘Lycian’; Zeus having Λυκαῖος or Λύκαιος / ‘Lykaios’) relative to λευκός (‘Leukos’ – ‘Light’) etc.

(And see Beekes’ … illuminating point viz. Ancient Greek λύγξ (that is – a lynx) with relation to PIE *Leuk- [alternatively reconstructed as *Lewk- – it refers to both ‘light’ and to ‘seeing’], wherein he somewhat frustratedly observes “an exact formal correspondence with λύκος [‘lykos’ – i.e. ‘wolf’] is found in the North-Germanic name of the lynx [which is] from IE *luko- […] However, one would of course prefer to connect the widespread name of the wolf, which is preserved in e.g. Skt. vṛ́ka-, Lith. vil̃kas, OCS vlъkъ, Go. wulfs, Alb. ulk. λύκος can be derived from IE *ulkʷo- if we assume metathesis. A comparable problem is found with Lat. lupus.” We would suggest with relation to what Beekes has just set out that the ‘resonance’ to be observed here between these terms for ‘Light’ and for ‘Lyka-‘ (so to speak) is entirely uncoincidental …)

And second – the South is the Direction toward the Realm of the Dead in Vedic terms, and it is partially for that reason that one observes the particular ‘Lawfulness’ of its saliency herein. ‘Dakshina’ is both ‘Right’, as in ‘Right Handed’ (and with the whole ritual edifice facing East – you see why it is to the Right, the Southern Point), but also ‘Right’ as in ‘Righteous’. Were one to be swearing a particularly Dread Oath or Vow, Fire as the Witness – and, specifically, the Southern Fire – wherein the Guardian , the Lawful One, is to be found, would prove pretty logical for the undertaker (and/or the pointedly reminder-ing-er) to invoke. (The fact that the aforementioned situation for this ‘Mountain’ / ‘Column’ [and, we assume, SigTyr’s Mount] in Woodard’s typology being the feature and ‘anchor’ for ‘Sovereignty’ … well, it goes likewise with the general context, no?)

Oh, and as applies that which I was getting at viz. “sól inni suðrhöllu” as the Sun in ‘Southern-Hall’ … Well, perhaps in some occurrences for the ‘ritual space’ undertaking in the Germanic sphere, something analogous to the śāla (‘Shaala’ – translated as “hall” or “pavilion” … or “fire-shed” upon occasion in Eggeling’s SBr) may have been envisaged.

There are a few things which occur to me with reference to the “hölkvi hvílbeðjar” also sworn upon – but as this has … rather significantly expanded in scope (the (A)Arti-cle, I mean), and as I have a few things which I should probably probe in that particular direction to double-check first, I shall gloss over it herein. Suffice to say that Bellows’ effort viz. “Horse of the Rest-Bed”, footnoted with “probably this means “bedpost,” i.e., the support of the marriage-bed”, does afford us some rather useful possibilities – but for another time.

Where I had actually intended to go here was, of course, the last of these four points: the “hringi Ullar” – the “ring of Ull.”

I hardly need to further elaborate upon this point as to what I think it is. The Skáldskaparmál section detailing the nomenclature for shields making reference to, it would seem, the demarcation of an ‘enclosure’ via the painting of a ‘ring’ upon their surface … with this being mentioned immediately following the attestation for the shield as ‘Ship of Ullr’ – well, not least with ‘Ship’ as ‘Ritual Enclosure’ it should seem quite logical for the “hringi Ullar” to therefore be that boundary to the Sacred Space which is also painted upon His ‘Ships’, the Shields, as a ‘replication’ of the Empowered Defence for the Ritual Enclosure, the Sacred Grove, upon that shield wielded by the warrior.

(As a point of interest – whilst the aforementioned Vitruvius was, of course, a Roman of the 1st century BC writing about the Temple construction principles of his day (at least, in those two books of his work) … the Romans were, in fact, rather big on the ‘Sacred Grove’ concept and actively maintained this enthusiasm even into their ‘Temple-Building’ age; the metaphysical undertakings & understandings involved with these presenting an obvious point of resonance with not only the Germanic (and, for that matter, Celtic) ‘Sacred Groves’ which we find the Romans relating to us – but also, of course, to the Vedic concept for the ‘Ritual Enclosure’ itself. But more upon this some other time.)

Now, there is one rather major suite of conceptry which I have yet to properly address – and that concerns the relevant theology proper as to Ullr, Himself a surprisingly enigmatic figure.

The Skáldskaparmál (21) names Him as öndurás, bogaás, veiðiás, and skjaldarás.

These render, broadly speaking, as “ás” as in ‘Aesir’, ‘God’, and thus ‘Snowshoe/Ski-‘, ‘Bow-‘, ‘Hunter-‘, and ‘Shield-‘ God.

I’ve rather ‘given the game away’ via not reworking the order of various things in my rewrite of all of this from a twitter-thread earlier … but let me put it this way:

If my conjecture viz. Ullr as the Protector of the Ritual Space / Sacred Enclosure is correct … would we have any other prominent Archer / Hunter deity from another IE sphere with such a saliency & (tri)pointed responsibility to point to via way of comparative example?

Well yes … yes we would. That being Rudra.

And, more pointedly, via His ‘Vastospati’, ‘Kshetrapala’ (‘Protector of the Kṣetra’) & ‘Kshetrapati’ (‘Lord/Husband of the Kṣetra’) hailings for He.

‘Kṣetra’ being a defined / ‘enclosed’ physical space (indeed, “enclosed” is the direct term of characterization provided by Monier-Williams to several senses therein) – particularly a temple precinct or sacred space , but potentially up to even a country in scope.

As applies ‘Kshetrapala’, one finds it utilized with reference for Bhairava as the Protector / Custodian of the Temple/Sacred Precinct most directly. One also potentially encounters something approaching the term in the famed ‘trilingual’ inscription

One also potentially encounters something approaching the term in the famed ‘trilingual’ inscription at the sanctuary of Letoön near Xanthos – the three languages in question being Ancient Greek, Lycian, and Aramaic. The last of these being utilized as the language for the Persian imperial dimension to proceedings – but featuring some calques and/or loanwords in order to cover particular (theological) elements which Aramaic (a language, after all, of the Semitic sphere rather than the Indo-European one) was not equipped to convey.

In this particular case – “ḤŠTRPTY” reads the Aramaic … with this being inferred to refer to Apollo (on grounds that the other theonymics mentioned are ” LˀTW “, i.e. “LETO”, and “ˀRTMWŠ”, as in “ARTEMIS”; the Ancient Greek inscription having Λητοῦς καὶ ἐγγόνων – i.e. Leto and Her Children, although interestingly not explicitly specifying it to be Apollo & Artemis by name. I have occasionally pondered what might truly lie beneath the “pñtrẽñni” encountered within the Lycian – more specifically whether it is Goddess or God that is indicated via what seems to be an “of the religious precinct” [following Bryce’s interpretation], but we shall not get into this here. I should also make mention for the ‘Nymphs’ – “Elijãna”, per the Lycian (also anglicized as ‘Eliyana’ / ‘Eliyanna’ / ‘Elijanna’), the familiar “Νυμφῶν” in the Ancient Greek, and simply ” WˀḤWRN”, or “The Others”, per the Aramaic). Oh, and for bonus points, there’s also mention for an “Alsos” being located there.

There are effectively two logical interpretations for ḤŠTRPTY – which, for the sake of my familiarity and convenience, I am going to choose to basically refer to utilizing the (cognate) Sanskrit rather than properly Iranic terms. Either it’s “Kshetrapati”, as we had encountered above, or it’s “Kshatrapati” (the actual Iranic, per Mayrhofer, being *χšaθra-pati ; and yes, despite the single letter’s difference, these two terms (‘Kshetra-‘ and ‘Kshatra-‘) come from rather different PIE roots) . Vernet makes an interesting case for it to be the latter – drawing upon the Σατράπης (etc.) apparently utilized in one case for Poseidon [per Pausanias VI 25 6] to suggest that the ‘Lord of Power’ (as Mayrhofer had effectively rendered the Iranic – “Herr der Herrschermacht”), and I definitely think that she’s on to something viz. the theonymic of Malija in relation to Leto; however I maintain that given the *context* for the invocation (basically a dire warning to anybody who would seek to ‘interfere’ with the religious precinct – the Lycian has “harm” (“xttadi / xttade”) towards Gods or Priest, the Greek basically phrases things in terms of interfering with the ‘Law’ of the place [that is – what had been vowed to be done there in terms of observances], the Aramaic has things being ‘taken’ from the Gods (or the priest), per the Valero translation) that a Protector (or, if you like, ‘Governor’) of the Sacred Space fits rather pertinently.

To return to the situation of Rudra … and that of Ullr … more directly – those theonymics in Old Norse which we had aforementioned (“öndurás, bogaás, veiðiás, and skjaldarás”), are rather useful in another fashion, as well.

You see, Ullr is not the only deific of the Nordic sphere that one finds referred to as being “öndur-“-deity, nor a hunter, nor an archer. There is another … that being the justly-terrific “öndurdís”, more frequently known as Skaði. (And it is perhaps interesting indeed to observe the underlying etymology to this “öndur-” – per Kroonen, once more, *andura-, which also produces Icelandic “Andra”, Old Norse “Andri”, with the sense “to wander” incorporated. The root being PIE *h₁ondʰ-ur- , which also gives us Ancient Greek ἐνθει̃ν, which Kroonen has “to come, go.”, and Sanskrit ádhvan (अध्वन्), which refers to a Road. A “Wanderer”, then, via our etymology – and One Who Is On Roads … for as the SBr says: “He offers on a road,—for on roads that God roves […]” [SBr II 6 2 7, Eggeling translation]).

Now, I shall spare the reader a sustained further digression at this point, viz. the theology of Skaði Herself – and simply note that our work has repeatedly attested that She would resonate rather strongly with exactly Whom we might anticipate for the Wife of Óðinn (particularly viz. Kālī). One can also certainly observe that Skadi’s prominent role within the Sanctioning of Loki should seem to ‘align’ with the basic precepts for the ‘Kshetra-Pala’ style conceptry – insofar as a (would-be) Violator of the Divine Order is rendered ‘no longer a threat’, being attacked, hunted down, and even bound [we remind ourselves of what happens to the transgressors at the Precinct of Letoon – “me=pddẽ: mahãna sm̃ma-ti: ebette:”, that is they are bound “on the spot to these Gods” (I think I have some ideas how …), per Melchert’s translation; Vernet goes for the more figurative requirement of “tak[ing] responsibility before these Gods”], and with those familiar animalistic exemplars for Divine Justice and the Protection for the Sacred Space, the Serpent and the Wolf showing up party to proceedings, likewise.

However there is also another reason to raise this (and, for that matter, the sanctuary of Letoon) here. Notice the pattern. One tends to encounter mention for this certain Archer Deity … as actually being a matched Pair. Indeed – a Female Counterpart.

Within the course of the Tryambakāḥ Rite – which, as one would anticipate, is vocally the propitiation for Rudra, carried out at a Crossroad, and with a range of features which also (entirely uncoincidentally) show up in that which we know for certain ritualistic operations in both Ancient Greece and even ‘carried forward’ as Folkways post-Christianization within Scandinavia (per Swedish court records upon the subject) – we hear mention made for not only Rudra, but also for His Sister [Svasā – स्वसा] … Ambikā [SBr II 6 2 9; VS III 57; Tait. Br. I 6 10 4, etc.].

Now, of course, this is a name which one would more usually encounter as Rudra’s Wife – however I suspect that the understanding is not dissimilar in this context; that is to say, that the ‘Sister’ identification is somewhat ‘figurative’. That said, it does avail us as applies the cross-comparison into the Hellenic theology – wherein one encounters Apollo and Artemis as Twins; and with the birth-circumstance making Apollo rather akin to the “Arjuna Sārameya” (the ‘Silver Son of Sarama’ – i.e. a Bright Canine, and ref. our earlier suite of points viz. Apollo’s ‘Light’ / ‘Lykaean’ coterminous theonymics – Leto being rather famously Wolf-Visaged for the episode in question) – that ‘Son of Sarama’ hailing being at RV VII 55 2 with relation to Vastospati (i.e. Rudra), and thus rendering “Λυκηγενέϊ κλυτοτόξῳ” at Iliad IV 101 (‘Wolf-Born Lord of the Bow’ – often rather pointedly the Silver Bow) quite a point of resonancy, indeed !

In any case – the Taittiriya Brahmana iteration adds the following detail – that this Sister ” is the Autumn; with Her He smites (or kills)” [Taitt. Br. I 6 10 4 ; Muir translation], with this being particularly accomplished (per the commentary of Mahīdhara upon both VS III 57 & the aforesaid Taittiriya Brahmana verse) via disease (a situation, of course, carried forth in the Devi Bhagavata Purana’s attestation [III 26] viz. Sharada / Autumn (and also Spring), with relation to the Goddess). And whilst there is quite a bit more which we could say upon this subject – that of Rudra (and related IE deific expressions) and Their Female Counterpart … this is not intended to be Their piece directly. The final point which we would make here is that one does rather pointedly observe a situation of the God and Goddess within the Ritual Enclosure situation – that is precisely the Vak and Vastospati scenario that we had earlier alluded to. ‘Vastos-‘ with relation to the place … ‘-Pati’ with relation to the ‘Husband / Lord / Protector’ thereof. Although, of course, as applies Vak as Wrathful Lioness … well, there is a Huntress and a Destroyer fully capable also of exercising the Protective responsibility, Herself ! From the quarter correlate with those ‘Temple Wolves’, no less, also !

To return more directly to the situation of Ullr – there is, of course, one difficulty. And that is that point which occurs at Voluspa 21 – wherein one hears that, in amidst those various theonymics etc. aforesaid, one calls Ullr as “son Sifjar, stjúp Þórs”.

Which, to translate, Son of Sif, and Stepson of Thor.

Surely this presents … a problem. And yeah, sure, it does. If you insist upon taking a prose section of the Skaldskaparmal entirely literally and at seemingly face value.

First up – ‘Sif’. The term itself basically just denotes (in its underlying sense), as Cleasby & Vigfusson’s Old Norse Dictionary puts it – “affinity, connection, by marriage; the word is used in ancient poems and in the law, and in comp[oun]ds; byggja sifjar, to marry;” etc. with the underpinning root itself, Proto-Germanic *sebjō-, per Kroonen, indicating “kinship”, and also producing terms not only for ‘sibling’ (as one might anticipate), but also (per Grimm – corroborated by Kroonen’s accounting for Gothic ‘un-sibjis’ to mean “lawless”) for ‘peace’ etc.

It would not feel entirely improbable for the scenario whereby Sif in connexion to Ullr was originally mentioned, to have had a rather more generic ‘Wife’ in mind than that particular Sif that is married to Thor. One might as well utilize “Frau” with relation to the “Frau of Odin” – i.e. “Freyja” (with which this is etymologically cognate), and then insist that any instance of a God with a ‘Frau’ (that is to say – married) … or, more to the point, stated to be the child of a God’s ‘Frau’, that there is only the one (female) figure involved. It is an inherently risky proposition. And one which can only somewhat be ameliorated via the stringent approach of treating individual occurrences ‘upon their (relative) merits’ and seeing how they might (or might not) align with the broader typology (or other such structural identification) to which they might otherwise seem to adhere. Otherwise, we could end up with a situation along the lines of that wherein the use of a generic term like ‘Tyr’ in prominent affixion to a specific God in the materials that have come down to us … would lead to a default presumption of any theonymic prominently featuring “-Tyr” to likewise refer to that Tyr specifically. Something that we are very much aware, as applies its usage as part of various Odinic theonymics, to not be the case.

If I were pressed to proffer a comparative Indo-European theological hypothesis as to the circumstances viz. a ‘Sif’ and Ullr – then I would probably run things back to that underpinning meaning for Sif, viz. ‘kinship’; and, in light of the Tanunaptra Rite (which, intriguingly, does appear to have had a Nordic correlate – given the ‘sætt’ at Gylfaginning 7, exactly where it should be, and correlate with the directly commensurate Hellenic understanding also) – therefore infer Ullr to, much as with Rudra, be emergent from such a collective undertaking as its effective ‘active expression’ and embodiment / custodian (again, c.f. Vastospati – viz. RV X 61 7 (with relation to ‘Vratapā’); and more directly, Agni (Rudra) in relation to the Tanunapat – ‘Extension of Kinship’ Rite of the Covenant / Divine Alliance).

I would also, perhaps, contemplatively observe once again that Lycian scenario – wherein it would appear that the term “as ẽni mahanahi, ‘mother of the gods’,” (to quote Melchert) [ref. ‘Aditi’ for the typological schema?] has effectively wound up ‘papered over the top of’ by “Leto”, assumedly from Lycian “Lada” (“Woman”, “Wife”; which would seem to underpin also “Leda”), and with this being now the best-known way to refer to the ‘Mother of Apollo’.

But let us move forward to that situation for Ullr as “stjúp Þórs”. I would suspect at that point that perhaps ‘Ullr’ is intended to mean something like ‘Lightning’. This is, after all, how one inferentially encounters it in the Anglo-Saxon ‘Nigon Wyrta Galdor’ – wherein one hears of the Nine “wuldortanas” (or ‘Glory-Twigs’, to translate literally) utilized by Woden for a spot of Apotropaic Dragon-Slaying in a manner which would seem suspiciously commensurate with the later-attested ‘Donderbezem’ motif. (There is some Potential support for this viz. Schweizer’s effort at reconstructing a root for ‘Wulthus’ which provided an effective meaning at the PIE level of “Shine / Be Bright”; as well as Pokorny’s notation for Old Saxon “Wliti” as “Radiance”, etc.)

Although that said, it is interesting indeed to observe that as applies the underpinning Proto-Germanic *wulþu- (per Pokorny – from PIE *ṷel-¹), its directly cognate term in Latin (“Vultus”) carries within it the sense “In partic., an angry countenance, stern look, grim visage” (per Lewis & Short’s dictionary). A familiar sounding ‘Face’, indeed ! Given Jakobson’s identification of (Balto-)Slavic Veles as deriving from PIE *ṷel- – one would contemplate, for a few reasons, a prospective correlation here, likewise. (Indeed, one might even integrate de Vries’ speculation for ‘Ullr’ as from a *wullīnaz, meaning “The Woolen” – mediated through the prominent utilization of the Fleece (Dios kodion – Διὸς κώδιον) in the course of the propitiation of Zeus (Maimaktes ‘The Raging / Furious / Stormy’ => Meilichios ‘The Approachable / Propitiable’; with the Suidas commentary having not only Zeus Meilichios but as recipient also Zeus Ktesios, a Zeus Aspect directly coterminous with the (later understanding for) Rudra Vastospati; c.f., we assume, the animal-skin so prominently associated with Rudra, as at SBr 2 6 2 17), as an evident Purificationary undertaking.

This notion of a ‘Face’ (an ‘alternate face’?) becomes especially pertinent when we consider one of the major actual textual occurrences for ‘Ullr’ from the textual corpus – that being within the course of Saxo Grammaticus’ Gesta Danorum [III 4 10], wherein we hear of a figure by the name of “Ollerus” (a Latinized ‘Ullr’). Whilst Saxo’s narrative of Odin driven into exile in sanction for alleged criminal conduct is probably just exactly that – Saxo’s narrative – the basic structure of that myth features important points of direct (as well as inferential) coterminity with an actual and evidently very ancient Indo-European myth, attested in relation to Rudra in a strand of Vedic texts culminating at Katha Aranyaka (II 100). It is therefore more than likely that Saxo, rather than ‘inventing from whole cloth’, chose to take and present (in the most unfavourable terms possible) authentic (if garbled, and with some key details either missing or actively ‘twisted’) Nordic mythology. Albeit perhaps with several different myths woven together to make up for some gaps etc.

In any case, in Saxo’s presentation, this ‘Ollerus’ is a “cunning magician” (per Fischer’s translation; “prestigiarum usu calluisse,” – a ‘priestly’ capacity, perhaps?), with a ‘substituted ship’ of supernatural purport (described via “ut ad traiicienda maria osse” – Fischer suggests “Clearly a reference to ice-skating”, although given its characterization viz. “quod diris carminibus obsignauisset”, “which he had engraved with fearful charms” (ibid.), I rather wonder if a sacral post is instead meant).

The most important detail, however, is also the simplest – this “Oller” is presented as having been not only God and King in ‘equivalency’ to Odin (indeed the “lawful inheritor of authority”) [III 4 10] … but is literally referred to by the Gods as Odin whilst ‘holding’ this ‘office’.

Phrased more succinctly – we have a figure called Odin, with the characterization which would seem suspiciously similar to that of Odin, holding the position of Odin … and also called “Uller”.

Clearly, the more direct explanation is that Saxo had sought to manufacture (or had ‘innocently’ misunderstood) scandal from the situation of there being ‘Two Facings’ (“Tveggi”, indeed ; viz. Völuspá 63 & Óðins nǫfn 8) for He.

As it is said at Taittiriya Samhita V 7 3 (etc.):

Verily, Rudra, Who this Living Fire [Agni] Is
Of Variegated Radiances, He –
The Terrific ‘Ghorā’, One ;
the Other, The Beneficent Śivā be.
Through ‘Śatarudrīyam’ Feeding-Flames,
This ‘Ghora’ Form They Appease ;
Whilst with ‘Vasordhāra’ nourishment,
That ‘Śiva’ Face They Please.
[Rolinson translation]

And as for why all of that had felt pertinent … ?

Well, as we have said – it should seem that the situation of the *Algiz … it is a ‘Space Protected’; and that quite naturally entails its *Protector*.

The point viz. Ullr having His Home at Ýdalir , the ‘Yew-Dale’ , in concert with the array of further elements for Ullr with relation to ‘Protection’ (and Ships, even!) should seem to posit Ullr as just such the ‘Protector’ Figure for this Germanic recension as to the Indo-European ‘Sacred Space’ / ‘Ritual Enclosure’.

A matter in direct concordance with the role for Odin’s correlates elsewhere within the Indo-European spectra (great Archers, in particular) – and therefore, with the evident identification for Ullr as Odin via another Facing, bringing it all together further.

And thus aiding in our conceptual explication for the Elder Futhark ᛉ [*Algiz] in relation to the Younger Futhark ᛦ “Yr”, as further supported via the “-z” to “-r” thence “-y” as attested via the linguistics.

Call it, perhaps, a “Unified Tree Theory”.