Talk:Hyperborea

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History / Human geography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force. Arctic Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Mythology Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Geography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs

I have added a sub-section to modern depictions explaining trends highlighted by the thinktank ISD. This is one of my earlier edits on a more popular page, so discussion and feedback is welcomed on my page Jjamieallen (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this: "Many think that the almost-immortal women who live in Hyperborea are named the Naiads, and are well-known for their beauty." "Many" indeed! A few, more deeply-read, know what a naiad actually is, however. --Wetman 19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

"In Greek maps from the time of Alexander the Great..." This editor is unaware that no maps from the time of Alexander the Great survive. A statement supported by spectral evidence is quite likely to be poppycock. Editors might look more critically at the statement supported by this particular "evidence" in this article. --Wetman 19:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Carl P.Ruck places Hyperborea beyond the Dzungarian Gate into northern Xinjiang, noting that the Hyperboreans were probably Chinese[8]."

IIRC Xinjiang ("New Territory") was not Chinese, it was full of Tocjarian caucasians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.22.113 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Places north of the Arctic Circle does NOT have midnight sun half the year! To believe that you have to live much closer to the Equator, probably within 50 degrees. The myth probably comes from a confusion of the Polar Regions with the Poles themselves. In reality, at the Arctic Circle the sun never sets on a single day (the Summer Solstice). On the other hand the sun never rises on the Winter Solstice. As you travel northward the number of days with midnight sun gradually increases. So does the number of days without sunrise. At the North Pole the sun only rises and sets once a year: it rises on the Spring Equinox and sets on the Autumn Equinox. (The same is true for the areas south of the Antarctic Circle but at the opposite time of the year. Consequently, the South Pole has midnight sun half the year and polar night the other half.) However, all over Scandinavia there is much difference between the length of day in the summer and winter. North of 60th degree dusk lasts all night during part of the summer. This is called white night and should not be confused with midnight sun. Statements about the real conditions were most likely exaggerated through rumouring when reaching the Ancient Greeks. They lived south of the 45th degree and did not know the mechanisms involved. So they might well have believed it. Unfortunately, some people still believe that but about a smaller area.

2006-12-19 Lena Synnerholm, Mästa, Sweden.

I have learned that the expression “the sun is up” is somewhat ambiguous. At least it is in Swedish. To me the expression means that the sun is visible at or above the horizon or at least could have been if there where no clouds in the way. I am not sure if this is really a problem in English. But I wanted to explain in the case someone got confused.

2010-08-11 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Schaeffer was part of the team that designed Hyperborean, a poker-playing computer that recently went undefeated at two tournaments hosted by the American Association of Artificial Intelligence."

http://technology.sympatico.msn.ca/News+and+Trends/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=29356021&feedname=CP-TECHNOLOGY&show=True&number=5&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc

Might not be notable yet, but will soon be.

Mathiastck 22:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This ethymological explanation seems to me slightly risky: "it was known as Siberia, translated from Sanskrit as Shivarya (Land of the God Shiva). " Then, how comes that in Russian, Siberia is pronounced "Sibir'?" Please, provide some more elaborated evidence about it. Thank you.

Svetlana

If any of the following can be sourced and related to Hyperborea--not "Siberia" etc-- do return it to the article (Wetman 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)):[reply]

According to Hindu mythology, the original five races of mankind originated in the Arctic Circle. They called their primeval homeland Uttara Kuru, meaning the "Northernmost Kuru." Kuru is the original name of the Turkish peoples. Another name of the Turks is Ari (Aryan or Noble Ones). The pre-diluvial Turks lived in a type of paradise, with lifespans of up to a thousand years, were always in a stat of bliss, and could leave their bodies at will and travel all over the Universe. The Greeks called this place HYPERBOREA. Among the Turks, it was known as Siberia, translated from Sanskrit as Shivarya (Land of the God Shiva). The Tibetan Buddhists call it Khedar Khand or Shambhala.

A recent discovery of evidence indicates the Saqqaq people were the original settlers of the region within the Arctic Circle. A tentative conclusion could be ventured that the Hyperboreans of legend originated with these people. http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/stone-age-settlers-new-world.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.239.81 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As editors, we can't draw conclusions (see WP:OR, we need to wait until reliable sources suggest this. Dougweller (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Henry Corbin, Spiritual Body and Celestial Earth (trans. Nancy Pearson, Princeton University Press, 1989, pps. 71-72).

"...That is why the progression, which this mode of thought makes it possible for us to conceive, is not a horizontal linear evolution, but an ascent from cycle to cycle, from one octave to a higher octave. A few pages from the same Shaikh, which have been translated here, illustrate this. The spiritual history of humanity since Adam is the cycle of prophecy following the cycle of cosmogony; but though the former follows in the train of the latter, it is in the nature of a reversion, a return and reascent to the pleroma. This has a gnostic flavor to be sure, but that is exactly what it means to 'see things in Hurqalya.' It means to see man and his world essentially in a vertical direction. The Orient-origin, which orients and magnetizes the return and reascent, is the celestial pole, the cosmic North, the 'emerald rock' at the summit of the cosmic mountain of Qaf, in the very place where the world of Hurqalya begins; so it is not a region situated East on the maps, not even those old maps that place the East at the top, in place of the North. The meaning of man and the meaning of his world are conferred upon them by this polar dimension, and not by a linear, horizontal and one-dimensional evolution, that famous 'sense of history' which nowadays has been taken for granted, even though the terms of reference on which it is based remain entirely hypothetical.

Moreover, the paradise of Yima in which are preserved the most beautiful of beings who will repopulate a transfigured world, namely, the Var that preserves the seed of the resurrection bodies, is situated in the North. The Earth of Light, the Terra Lucida of Manicheism, like that of Mazdeism [Zoroastrianism], is also situated in the direction of the cosmic North. In the same way, according to the mystic Abd al-Karim Jili, the 'earth of the souls' is a region in the far North, the only one not to have been affected by the consequences of the fall of Adam. It is the abode of the 'men of the Invisible,' ruled by the mysterious prophet Khizr (Khadir). A characteristic feature is that its light is that of the 'midnight sun,' since the evening prayer is unknown there, dawn rising before the sun has set. And here it might be useful to look at all the symbols that converge toward the paradise of the North, the souls' Earth of Light and castle of the Grail...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the following two statements are found under the Cultural References section:
"# The electronic music group Tangerine Dream have published an album named Hyperborea."
"# The band Tangerine Dream have an album "Hyperborea" dating from 1983."
I guess I'll combine them into one. For the record, the Southern California doom metal band Keen Of The Crow named their only album Hyperborea as well, but I don't see the point in listing that here.

Another thing:

"...Desert claims Eden,
And Hyperborean,
Visions of Utopia are driven from the sun..."

Did Cradle of Filth really get the punctuation so wrong? "Hyperborean" is an adjective (or possibly an adverb); thus, these lyrics don't make sense, syntactically, unless there is either a comma before "Hyperborean":

"...Desert claims Eden,
And, hyperborean,
Visions of Utopia are driven from the sun..."

(meaning that the manner of driving the "visions of Utopia" are "hyperborean" in nature); or no comma after it, with "Hyperborean" and "Visions..." on the same line; thus:

"...Desert claims Eden, And hyperborean visions of Utopia are driven from the sun..."

(meaning that the Visions, themselves, are "Hyperborean") ...and in either case, "hyperborean" would be lowercase. If the online lyrics sites can be believed (mostly, they just seem to parrot each others' mistakes), the spelling in the lyrics really is the -n ending adjective form... in which case we have to wonder whether CoF just spelled it wrong, to rhyme with "Eden"? Occam's razor seems to prefer this last theory. rowley (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right.... regardless of the grammatical and artistic considerations of the music - or your obvious distaste for the group - If there is to be such a sweeping section such as "Cultural References" for Hyperborea, I see no reason why this would not fall within it. Most of the other cultural references are equally useless from a reference point, not much different from a trivia section. But if the "Cultural References" section is deemed suitable for the Hyperborea article, for whatever reason, then the COF reference is just as relevant as those other crappy bands.

Perhaps only include cultural references from literature only? Or maybe not at all since Hyperborea itself is a "cultural reference"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.195.198 (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

71.239.87.234 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)I'm under the impression that any reference cultural or otherwise should be notable according to Wikipedia standards. If cultural reference sections seem like trivia sections, then so be it, I see no problem with that. pedia can be elite without becoming elitist. One reference that I think should be included in this section is the notable Conan the Barbarian literature. the cultural connection here is that the setting of the characters in these works takes place in the "Hyborian age", which wikipedia notes elsewhere in its articles is a term derived from the Hyperborean mythology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyborian_Age. If I get around to it I may add an entry to this literature myself, but I'd prefer to simply make the suggestion and leave it to more experienced editors.71.239.87.234 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"One theory holds that Hyperborea was derived from a logical (though erroneous) explanation of the Greeks for the fact that embedded inside the amber arriving in their cities by trade with northern, cold countries were insects which obviously originated in a warm climate.

Not aware of the explanation offered by modern science (i.e. that these insects had lived in times when the climate of northern Europe was much warmer, their bodies preserved unchanged in the amber) the Greeks came up with the idea that north countries being cold was due to the cold breath of Boreas, the North Wind. Therefore, should one be able to get beyond him (Hyperborea literally means "beyond Boreas") one would find a warm and sunny land."

This theory appears in Avram Davidson's "Adventures in Unhistory". I can't find my copy, so I can't be of much help beyond that, but hopefully someone will be able to do something with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.22.133 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Judeo-Christian Bible contains what appears to be cryptic references to a polar-Hyperborean mythos: "Mount Zion in the Far North is the city of the great King," Ps 48, 2; Job 37, 22; Isaiah 14, 13; Ezek. 1, 4, etc. The Catholic New American Bible alludes to this biblical representation of the supreme "North as a symbol of God's mysterious abode." [1] [2].

If not in this entry, somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.41.102 (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Library of Congress Classification System include Hyperborean Language works in subclass PM. The use of the term is, evidently, based on a secondary definition of Hyperborean, 'of or relating to the far north; arctic,' that is not discussed directly. Further complicating matters, the LOC article links to this article for the term, and the article on the subclass links to Paleosiberian languages. Can someone having more knowledge on this than I, please, update this article with something appropriate? Kevin/Last1in (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term appears to be mistranslated here. All ancient sources mention either Hyperborean or Hyperboreans. This comes from ὑπέρ/(h)yper + Βορέας/boréas, with "hyper-" always being either +genitivus or +accusativus. "Boreas" can then either be "Boreou" (gen) or "Borean" (acc). Since it's "Hyperborean" and not "Hyperboreou", I'm quite convinced this is an acc. Hyper here is not location-wise, it is "stronger than" or "more (than)". "Stronger than the Borean (the Northern wind)", or "more Northern (than us)". Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the actual form attested in Ancient Greek mentioned at the beginning of the article. It does not end in -ean. The English ending has nothing to do with the Ancient Greek accusative. It's simply the -an suffix found in many English ethnonyms such as Romans or Tibetans (ultimately from Latin -ānus, via French) added to Hyperbore(a). In German, for example, they're called Hyperboreer, with the German suffix -er, and in French, Hyperboréens, with the French suffix -en. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyperborea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914092948/http://www.matrixofcreation.co.uk/php/JGB/systematics-vol1-no3-203-232.htm to http://www.matrixofcreation.co.uk/php/JGB/systematics-vol1-no3-203-232.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Bridegman cited as a source? Why not the original ancient sources? --109.193.45.30 (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lachezar Filipov claims Hyperborea was at the North Pole. SChalice (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Doug Weller talk 07:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have preliminarily reorganized the page since various additions of the last months have put a couple of things together under one heading that are vastly unrelated to each other, like honest attempts by historians to find a factual core in Herodotus' account next to Russian far-right crackpotism and neo-Nazi memes under "Modern interpretations", or Blavatsky, Serrano and (again) neo-Nazi memes in "Hyperborea in modern esoteric thought". I am sure there is a better or more fine-grained solution to it, but at least we don't have Carl P. Ruck next to people like Dugin in one section. Austronesier (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NebY the Greeks mention "Atlas among the hyperboreans" while atlas was enduring punishment in north africa. the concensus on atlas being a north african Libyan god is more than well established, there is a 4000 km wide mountain range in North africa named after him. see souces provided on Atlas king of Mauretania and god of the Libyans ^[1][2][3] Potymkin (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits and the above breach WP:SYNTH - part of our policy barring original research - and in any context would be an extraordinary failure of reasoning. One Greek, Pseudo-Apollodorus, wrote that the Titan Atlas and those apples were among the Hyperboreans. He was explicit: "These apples were not, as some have said, in Libya, but on Atlas among the Hyperboreans". It is absurd to construe that as "the Greeks " saying Hyperborea - the extreme north - was in Libya, and it is contrary to WP:SYNTH. (Yes, I have seen that Potymkin has been blocked indefinitely but I've responded in case anyone might later think this is an open question.) NebY (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it is common in wikipedia, new and inexperienced editors, some perhaps without bad intentions, may think of articles as pinboards where you can just add anything that seemingly relates to the article's subject. This is particulalry common in mythology articles, where we often see useless lists of modern books, pop culture and social media references etc. and, based on what I've seen, more experienced editors tend to either remove or condense these lists, due to them being essentially irrelevant for the subject.

From what I see, in the past few years several perhaps good-faith but problematic additions by inexperienced users went unnoticed making the current structure of this article a mess. It seems that it started in December 2021 with an inexperienced new editor creating a completely WP:UNDUE new section (diff) as they explain at the talkpage discussion: "Hyperborean imagery in neo-Nazi social media content". The section was later expanded by other small editors to include modern utterly WP:FRINGE ideas of the Hyperboreans from some Russian theorists, and it was later given the current and completely WP:OR title "Hyperborea in radical Russian nationalist and neo-Nazi imagery". I wonder why some fringe tiktok memes and pseudoscientific Russian theories are clumsily put together in the same section; why they are given their own standalone section; and why they are even relevant for this article, the subject of which is ancient mythology? It seems that some users have also pointed this out before (diff1), including the fact that until then this addition was just WP:PROMOTION for a think tank and all we got now is just a questionable quality vice source (diff2). Additionally, the vice source says that the tiktok meme is about a "made-up Hyperborea... a fantastical Artctic, Aryan fairyland"; it is obvious that some tiktok users merely took the name "Hyperborea" and made up their own fringe content out of it, and it is thus completely irrelevant to the actual ancient myth of Hyperborea which is the subject of this article. An important wikipedia policy says that mere verifiability of a piece of information doesn't warrant its inclusion, and I believe this couldn't fit more perfectly here regarding both the tiktok "meme" as well as the pseudoscientific theories. If any piece of information were to be maintained in the article (for example, just for the sake of it being a fringe theory by a somewhat notable author, like the "ancient astronauts" of Robert Charroux) it would be put under another section, like "Modern interpretations", where it would fit more properly, and it obviously wouldn't get its own separate subsection and title, per WP:UNDUE. Piccco (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for examining this and making a start on it. I hesitate to dive deep into it, but I notice the only remaining ref for Dugin is material described as "This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site."^[1] That's unusable WP:SPS. Should that para go completely or is anything salavgeable with an RS? NebY (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback; the opinion of a more experienced user is useful here. To be honest, I was initially thinking of completely removing this paragraph too, but I hesitated a little because I didn't wanna be seen as too WP:BOLD. Personally, I think that the paragraph doesn't provide anything useful for the myth of Hyperborea, nor will its removal damage the quality of the page. Piccco (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dugin's notable enough to have his own article, but on a superficial search, few of the references to his ideas about Hyperborea were obviously reliable, e.g. in works published by a reputable publisher. Still, this one is, being published by the OUP, and I see its footnotes (do you have Wikipedia Library access? highly recommended) point to some journals that look possible. It might be that all we can source reliably and that's of encyclopedic significance is that he's one of the moderns who've expounded on theories of Hyperborean origins of modern peoples, movements or conflicts (I'm putting it vaguely in haste), or more might be available in such journals.

As for the rest, a brief mention that there are such modern theories and who's propounded them seems reasonable. The reasoning of the first paragraph of the section, in Wikivoice, with unreferenced assertions about Hercules and reindeer and the meaning thereof, is not appropriate. The second paragraph's presentation is also problematic but worse, it's all about the theories of a science fiction writer who doesn't have standing as a scholar and I don't think his work can be taken to be a RS. I'll remove it now. NebY (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as you can tell, I'm neither for nor against keeping it; perhaps a concise mention of the author and his theory wouldn't be bad, as long as the theory attracted some attention, the author is somewhat notable, and there are reliable sources discussing it. Whatever we do, I believe, references to such theories should remain concise (just a few sentences long) basically having the bare minimum WP:DUE coverage. Personally, after yesterday's digging, I don't really have the energy to do further research for that (Dugin's work) right now, because it's just feels a bit trivial. BTW, you seem right about Avraam Davidson's science fiction work; I didn't notice that yesterday. In general, feel free to work on those paragraphs (remove/rewrite) however you think is appropriate, if you feel like it. I'm sure anything would be an improvement compared to yesterday's version. Btw, I do not have access to wikipedia library, how does that work exactly? Piccco (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]