From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mythology (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Mannus is probably derived from the Vedic Manushya.

Manu was the first man as per Hindu tradition and his descendants were/are called Manushya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:44, 12 June 2006

I'm not sure what you mean by "derived". Germanic and Indo-Aryan culture share a common origin, but I know of no actual cultural contact in the first centuries BC and AD. So rather than one being derived from the other, they may simply have evolved from the same Indoeuropean concept. --Helmold 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Tacitus mispelled Tywaz all-Father ,calling him for Tuisto,and Mannaz is his son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talkcontribs) 11:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Related figures[edit]

The article states that "Mannus is remembered as being the father of both Odin and Frey" - where is the source of that? The article talks about the Edda in the begining of the paragraph but where do you find that in the Edda?

A: Mannus is the father of the man-gods for whom the Ingaevones and Irminones are named, ie. Ingui and Irmin. In the Eddaic sources Yngvi is the personal name of the deity FreyR while Jormun is given as one of Odhinn's bynames. These, ie. Yngvi and Jormun are the Old Norse forms of Ingui and Irmin. Hence, as Man us is remembered as the father of Yngvi and Jormun, he is remembered as the father of Frey and Odin.

Further do the article state that: "In Eddaic Creation, Mannus is comparable to Borr." - which feels VERY s Speculative. Sources and argument for that please.

A: In the Eddas, Buri beget Borr from whom sprung a trio of brother-gods.In the ancient hymns, Tuisto beget Man us from whom sprung a trio of brother-gods. Hence, Man us is comparable to Borr. Hardly speculative at all.

One theory looks like this:

The relationship in the Vedic tradtion is:

Bhṛgu -> Vāruṇibhṛgu -> Śukrācārya -> Tvaṣṭr -> Saranyū and Vivaswān -> Manu

Bhrgu is one of the seven great sages and said to be a fire priest. He was wish-born-son of Lord Brahma, who simply wished him into existence, to assist in the process of creation. He created the Bhrigu clan and of the father of astrology.

Śukrācārya (Shukra) is sometimes stated as Bhrgu's son and sometimes as grandson. He travled far and wide and to several Rishis ("seers of the Vedas") and also to Lord Vishnu himself to learn divine knowledge and magical Mantras. He is not describes as feminin but in Vedic astrology he stands for classical feminin virtues and wealth. He was the guru of Asura (recognised as the sours for the norse word for "gods" - As - meaning 'powerful' or 'mighty) and he gave them victory over the Devas by raising their dead. In a incident with Vishnu and the Asura king Bali he got his left eye poked out leaving him half blind. He is associated with water and through that and his knowledge in political affairs and the dead he can be connected with the most prominent and leader of Asura in the Rigveda Varuna who is a god the sky, water/ocean, law/order as well as the underworld. Varuna is chief of the Ādityas (offsprings of Aditi - described as a cosmic cow) and brother to Indra (king of the Devas and god of war, storms and rain).

Tvaṣṭr is recognised as the germanic Tuisto/Tuisco father of Mannus through the connection through his daughter Saranyū and her husband Vivaswān who has a son named Manu (Sraddhadeva Manu) who is progenitor of mankind.

If we translate this to Norse Mythology we can get:

Búri -> Borr -> Odin -> Thor -> Magni

Apart from the slightly resemblances in names Thor and Magni has nothing in common with Tavastr and Manu (both Thor and Magni is similar to Indra who fights with Tavastr). Shukra on the other hand has a lot in common with Odin - especially if you mix him up with some aspects of Indra. Indra is often seen as a part of the Indo-European sky god (after he have killed and taken his father's, Dyaus Pita, place) but even his brother, Varuna, is considered a sky god so even. In Indo-Iranian traditions Indra do not exists (other then as a demon) and in Zoroastrian the Victory-aspect (Verethragna/Bahram) and the thunder/storm/rain-aspect (Tishtrya/Tir) is split in to two deities - just as in Norse mythology.

As Odin has many similarities with Shukra but also with the victory-aspect (Braham) of Indra as well as the royal/leading role of both Indra and Varuna and the dual nature (good and evil in one) of the early almighty Ahura Mazda and fatherly figures of Zeus and Jupiter we can assume that Odin is a form of the Indo-European sky god Dyeus. To make the picture of Odin as "Father Sky" clearer he is called: Thund (Thunderer), Viðrir (Stormer), Hveðrungr (Roarer/Weather-maker) even though he usually is not considered to be a rain- or weather god. He is also called: Valdr vagnbrautar (Ruler of Heaven), Alföðr (Allfader), Aldaföðr (Father of all men/world). He rides a horse (sleipner)and are called: Atriðr (Attack-rider), Fráríðr (forth-rider) - see the similarity to the vedic "Sky Father" Dyaus Pita that at night rides/is a black horse holding a thunder-stone. He also and throws his magical spear (see the similarity to Tengris Lightning, Indras Thunderbolts and Zeus Lightning).

So if we assume that Odin is coherent with the Indo-European sky-father (Dyēus phater) and that Tuisco (Proto-Germanic *tiwisko) means "son of Tiu/Tiwaz/*Dyēus" then it is not far to assume that Tuisto/Tuisco is the son of Odin and not Odins grandfather.

Kāśyapa and Aditi is listed as parents for: Indra, Agni (Indra's twin), Tvaṣṭṛ, Varuṇa, Viṣṇu, and Surya (and a couple of others). Dyauṣ Pitṛ (sky-father) and Prithivi Matṛ (earthmother) is also said to be parents of Indra and Agni and both Aditi and Prithivi is portrayed as "cosmic cows". Kāśyapa is not only one person so it is possible that Dyauṣ have been called Kāśyapa and if so has vedic Tavastr also the "sky-father" as father. Vivasvat/Surya is said to have either Kāśyapa, Dyauṣ Pitṛ or Indra as father - depending on version. Surya and Tavastr was brothers so it is fair to assume that the same applies for him. That also connects Shukra (that has alot of similarities to Odin) to Kāśyapa/Dyauṣ Pitṛ - the "sky-father".

Tyr is the Eddaic deity whose name springs from the same root at Dyaus, ie. Odhinn is NOT coherent with the I-E skyfather. Moreover the Ed as give us Jormun,ie. Irmin, as one of Odhinn's by names, while Widuki d the Saxon described Irmin as both Mars and Hermes, ie. Woden is the grandson of Tuisto.

If Shukra/Kāśyapa/Dyauṣ Pitṛ is coherent with Odin what son is Tavastr coherent with? the article says that Heimdall has the most resemblance to Mannus but I don't think that is correct. If we look at the vedic traditions it is Vivasvat/Surya (the sun) that is the father of the first Manu (humans). In norse mytology it is Heimdall ("He who illuminates the world"), son of Odin, that is the "father" of mankind. Tuisco can therefor be coherent with Heimdall - otherwise Heimdall needs to be married to his unidentified brothers daughter. It is very likely that "grandson" have become just "son". But we are still stuck with the problem to identify wich of Odins sons that is coherent with Tavastr/Tuisto/Tuisco.

The connection then becomes:

Vedic: Bhṛgu -> Vāruṇibhṛgu -> Śukrācārya -> Tvaṣṭr -> Saranyū and Vivaswān -> Manu

Norse: Búri -> Borr -> Odin -> ? -> ? and Heimdall -> Mannus

Removal of sourced content[edit]

Clear violation of WP:NPOV by User:Bloodofox can be seen, claiming reliably sourced material to be Fringed, when it seems to be popular. OccultZone (Talk) 13:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You keep inserting this material about Latinized Proto-Germanic mannus deriving from Sanskrit manu. Perhaps you're misreading your sources. The terms are cognate, both from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) *man-. Mannus is quite transparently 'man' and philological sources will tell you this at every turn. The concept itself may also stem from PIE religion, where there may have been a foundation figure named 'man'. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any refute for the sourced information, that you have just removed, especially when it was WP:Fringe like you had claimed, it must have been easier to do. OccultZone (Talk) 14:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
You are altering the sources to make it seem as if the word was borrowed from Sanskrit, when they are in fact discussing a potential Indo-European stem for both attestations with the hypothesis that these are cognate. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Reword it or expand, but don't remove. As long as it is sourced. OccultZone (Talk) 14:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Misinformation should and will be removed. I see that an anonymous IP has conveniently reverted back to your preferred version, OccultZone. I'll ask: Is that you circumventing the 3RR? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I see that there are two IPs at it now. This page needs to be protected. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
You can go through the sources I have posted, each of them supports the information. So what 'misinformation' you are talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
None of the sources support that this is a borrowing from Sanskrit into Latin or German. That is known as falsification. It might be a wild theory that Latin and German borrowed the word from Sanskrit, but we haven't even seen sources really saying that yet, only that it might (MIGHT) stem from the same Indo-European stem. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Sources support that it is a sanskrit word, and related/connected with a sankrit word. And with a hindu tradition of Manu. That has to be mentioned. But you have removed 5 times more than that. (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ==Tacitus' account==

Tacitus (Germania, chapter 2), writing in Latin, related as follows:

"In ancient lays, their only type of historical tradition, they celebrate Tuisto, a god brought forth from the earth. They attribute to him a son, Mannus, the source and founder of their people, and to Mannus three sons, from whose names those nearest the Ocean are called Ingvaeones, those in the middle Herminones, and the rest Istvaeones. Some people, inasmuch as antiquity gives free rein to speculation, maintain that there were more sons born from the god and hence more tribal designations—Marsi, Gambrivii, Suebi, and Vandilii—and that those names are genuine and ancient."

Source :- Tales of the Barbarians: Ethnography and Empire in the Roman West, p. 40, Greg Woolf, John Wiley & Sons, 01-Dec-2010

  1. According to some scholars, the name of this deity or mythological ancestor of Germans is considered a Sanskrit word, meaning human or man (also Homo sapiens).

Sources :-

  • Devī: Goddesses of India, p. 156, by John Stratton Hawley, Donna M. Wulff, Motilal Banarsidass Publication., 1998
  • "A Sanskrit Reader: Text and Vocabulary and Notes", p. 340, by Charles Rockwell Lanman, Motilal Banarsidass Publication., 1996

By some, it has been connected with Manu in Hindu tradition.

  • Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, p. 30, Benjamin W. Fortson, IV, 2011, John Wiley & Sons
  • Greek Mythology and Poetics, by Gregory Nagy, Cornell University Press, 1992, p. 111, quote = Manu can be described as a specialized multiform of Vivasvat: both figures are primordial sacrificers, both are ancestors of the human race, ... In Germanic lore, as we hear from Tacitus (Germania 2), the first man was Mannus, son of Tuisttr, the etymology of the latter name reveals the meaning.
  • Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, p. 430, by Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 1863

--The Rune Poem --

This deity shares his name with the 20th rune of the Elder Futhark and the 14th rune of the Younger Futhark. It also appears in the runic mnemonic the Abecedarium Nordmannicum, which states "Tiu, Birch, and Man in the Middle". Each of the poems associates Man with the earth, soil (moldR, eorthan).

Source :-

  • Germania, p. 50, by Cornelius Tacitus, J. B. Rives, Clarendon Press, 1999
  • Mannus, Volume 56, Issue 4, p. 358 - 359, 1990, Original from - the University of California

--Related figures-- In the Eddas, Mannus seems to most closely resemble Heimdall (World's Brightness).

Source -

  • Taking Up The Runes: A Complete Guide To Using Runes In Spells, Rituals, Divination, And Magic, p. 203, Diana L. Paxson, Weiser, 01-May-2005

In the opening passage of the Voluspa, men are referred to as being Heimdall's kin, while in the poem Rigsthula he is shown uniting each of the hierarchal ranks in siblinghood. Furthermore, while Mannus is remembered as being the father of both Odin and Frey, Heimdall is remembered as being one of the Aesir, but also to have qualities directly linked to the Vanir and to exist in a close paternal relationship to Freyja.


  • Taking Up The Runes: A Complete Guide To Using Runes In Spells, Rituals, Divination, And Magic, p. 203-204, Diana L. Paxson, Weiser, 01-May-2005

--Sons of Mannus-- The names of the three sons of Mannus can be extrapolated as Ingui, Irmin, and Istaev aka Iscio. Source:-

  • Populäre Mythologie, oder Götterlehre aller Völker, p. 112, F. Nork, Scheible, Rieger & Sattler

In the Eddas we find the name Yngvi applied to the god FreyR, while the same source lists Jormun (the Old Norse cognate of Irmin) as a byname of Odin's. Widukind of Corvey further identifies the deity associated with the Saxon Irminsul as Hermin, that is, Hermes, but worshipped as Mars. (THIS will need citation)

So you have removed far more than the single part you have clearly misunderstood. Current version is very irrelevant, and Original researcher, you have mentioned a known forger, and there are no sources at all. (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Known forger? You mean Annius de Viterbo? So what if he is a forger? The statement I added is still correct, aside from Tacitus the Roman, there is no classical source for "Mannus" whatsoever, and until you get to the 16th century, then you will find loads of sources thanks to Annius. This is all verifiable, historiographic, and encyclopedic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem, but it is 100% unsourced and original research. If you can back it up, there is no problem, but you still haven't backed up that why you've degraded whole article to 0 references and 3 times lower. (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It would be original research if I made it up. It's not, of course it can be backed up. They made extensive searches for all of Annius' claims when they were trying to tell if it was a forgery, and nothing other than Tacitus could be found for this one, it's all well documented. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
"it can be backed up" is no excuse, since it hasn't been backed up at the present moment. You are just wasting time now. (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Mannus isn't loaned in from Sanskrit. We have a link to an article covering the etymology of man, but we can certainly use a summary here. I recommend citing Orel to start with. Paxson's book isn't a source we should be citing from here. The etymology of Heimdallr isn't transparent (see Heimdallr). Mannus, who isn't necessary a "deity", shares his name with the common noun man; we need more than "sharing names", and we need scholarship discussing the connection to be kept here. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Why there is a need to go by your personal and isolated opinion when all sources are clearly Reliable, scholarly and shout against your personal will? (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Only problem with the edit of 111 is that they haven't been referenced that well, per WP:Cite.

Wouldn't be commenting on edit warring. But I have not agreed with the removal of content. Furthermore, I had suggested to "Reword it or expand, but don't remove. As long as it is sourced." Above, there is lack of rational argument or any valid support for removal.

I would want to know what @Sitush:, @Anupmehra:, @TheRedPenOfDoom:, @Binksternet: have to say, considering that there is massive removal of sourced content, and explicit ownership of articles.

I would support the restoration, the main conflicted section is etymology, it can be reworded and expanded in matter of few minutes, even for that, it has to stay. OccultZone (Talk) 05:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've not looked at the article history yet but why on earth do we have an unreferenced Attestation section? And why are we including a whopping big quote from Tacitus, who might be better-known than me but is no more reliable than me? Who translated that quotation? Is there no modern source that refers to the opinion of Tacitus in this context? Is his the only variant of the myth? - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone provide copies of the relevant bits of the sources referred to in this edit? It seems to me that the core issue here is whether or not those sources are being represented accurately. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
And does the explanation here help with the Sanskrit issue? and this? BRILL are usually considered to be an excellent publisher, as are Oxford University Press. I do worry that stuff has been removed here rather than fixed: the various people involved seem to think that they know the sources & so it should be possible to fix the alleged misrepresentations in a manner that still adds value to the article. Time is a problem, sure, but a lot of time seems already to have been expended just in warring about it. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
RIGHT Sitush, the present version is just unsourced original research. Information stayed here for years, but when I sourced them, Til Eulenspiegel started to delete.

"Ancient lays, their only type", quote.

  • 1st source, [1]


  • 2nd source, [2]
  • 3rd source, [3]

4th source, [4]

  • 5th source, [5]
  • 6th source, [6]

The Rune poem

  • 7th source, [7]
  • 8th source, Mannus, Volume 56, Issue 4, p. 358 - 359, is not available anymore.

Related figures

  • 10th source, [8]. From page 203- 205.

Sons of mannus

  • 11th source, [9]

If you don't understand it, you can check these instead:- [10], [11] (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sitush (talk · contribs), Re your question on "is Tacitus the only variant of this myth?" Yes. As far as we know. Until you get to 1498 when Annius published his variant. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not about "as far as we know", but what has been actually supported by sources, either way you got no sources of your original research.
Please do not accuse me of "original research" unless you mean to say I am inventing this myself. This is as far as scholarship knows, obviously not as far as you know since you seem skeptical. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Also the two sources on googlebooks that you linked about Sanskrit, support what BloodOfOx and I have been saying, that the word Mannus is not Sanskrit but feasibly might share a common Indo-European root with the Sanskrit word. However the material he removed and then I re-removed was falsely making the case that the word Mannus itself is Sanskrit, was borrowed directly from Sanskrit or from some postulated Sanskrit influence on Germanic / Latin Europe, that is a misrepresentation of the sources and why i kept deleting and if it needs re-writing then re-write it first, not edit war with the falsified version. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't justify your edit warring now. No one ever wrote that Mannus is sanskrit. "borrowed" is basic word, you are taking it personally, and I had changed it to "connected with", you have removed a lot more than Etymology section. What you are doing is removing because you misunderstood them. (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
You are the worst edit warrior I have seen in a little while. "Meretrix pudicam ____" ... And to contradict you, yes you indeed repeatedly wrote that it is a Sanskrit word. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Because it is far clear, that etymology section is not going to be removed or blanked. Now talk about how it will be written, with the help of these 5 reliable sources. (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Ahem: "The name of this deity or mythological ancestor is a Sanskrit word, meaning human or man (also Homo sapiens)". If only some sort of introduction to historical linguistics was required in the early curriculum. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Some of your sources do confirm that Manu is a Hindu figure (which we already know) but they make no mention of the article topic, the Germanic Mannus, or any kind of claims pertaining to Germanic Mannus, and so we cannot use them because of WP:SYNTH. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, we have to avoid Synth, so we can try this one:-

"The word Mannus stemmed from Indo-European root (see Sanskrit manu).[12],[13] Some scholars see a connection between Mannus and the names of other ancient founder-kings, such as Minos of Greek mythology, and Manu of Hindu tradition.[14], [15], [16], [17]." (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"Some scholars" is a weasel word and needs qualifying, because while your proposed text is slowly becoming more accurate, it is using what would definitely be considered extreme fringe sources, to play up the putative "Sanskrit Manu" connection with this topic to the hilt. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
They all are essentially reliable sources. [18] [19], [20], If you think that "Some scholars" is weasel word, tell why. You can find other word or suggest, and the information is perfect. I am sure that these academic publishers wouldn't distribute fringe. There are number of sources for this conclusion. (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The first one I looked at says that Mannus, Manu, Minos and Egyptian Menes were all definitely the same person (which is impossible) because their names are somewhat similar, and then he starts talking about how he deduced that this person interacted with the Nephilim, etc. Is this a reliable source?
"Some scholars" is technically a weasel word as described by WP:WEASEL because it doesn't explain who the "some scholars" are who think that. It should explain what school of thought thinks that, or if there is no name for it, give the name of the authors who wrote that, eg. "Blavatsky in the Secret Doctrine contended that Mannus, Manu, Minos and Menes were all the same person and that he interacted with the Nephilim" - IF we assume that this "reliable source" of yours meeds our "due weight" requirement. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It says that these names shares same connection and roots with each other, all 3 of them. How WP:Weasel applies here? "which is impossible" is now your own opinion. We are going by what sources says. Obviously it is a reliable source, look at the publisher and author. Instead you should ask "how it is not a reliable source". Nice try, but Griffith is not Blavatsky, neither other 4 authors are. (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but indeed, your source above currently numbered 15 is Blavatsky. However, this would not be readily apparent from a google search, as google books has (as they sometimes do) deceptively put it inside a book cover labeled The Dead Command: From the Spanish Los Muertos Mandan. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
"Scholars like Ralph T. H. Griffith see a connection between Mannus and the names of other ancient founder-kings, such as Minos of Greek mythology, and Manu of Hindu tradition."[21] seems better. (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)