The Ártala calendar is a reconstruction of a Germanic lunisolar calendar based on a fragmentary historical record. Ancient accounts, medieval calendar traditions, historical month names and modern scholarship each provide pieces of evidence. No complete historical calendar has survived that I could simply put back into use today.
Working on the Ártala calendar therefore also means asking how secure a particular claim is and where reconstruction begins.
This page explains how I work with sources, how I make decisions about the calendar and how I use digital tools, including artificial intelligence.
Evidence and reconstruction
What we know about pre-Christian Germanic timekeeping comes from very different kinds of evidence.
Roman authors mention individual customs of Germanic groups. Medieval texts preserve month names and festival periods from different regions and centuries. Linguistic, archaeological and religious-studies research helps place these records in context.
Taken together, these sources do not provide a complete calendar system.
The Ártala calendar brings them together in a modern reconstruction. I try to make clear how firmly each part of that reconstruction is supported.
Some statements can be traced directly to historical sources. Others rely on scholarly reconstructions or on my assessment of several pieces of evidence. A calendar that can actually be used also requires decisions in places where no unambiguous historical rule has survived.
I want these differences to remain visible throughout the site.
Working with sources
Whenever possible, I consult the historical evidence itself and compare it with modern scholarship.
Context matters. An ancient account of Germanic groups was written by a particular author, at a particular time and for particular purposes. Medieval traditions cannot automatically be projected onto earlier centuries or transferred from one region to another.
Modern scholarship helps me assess these problems, compare translations and understand competing interpretations.
The work of Andreas Zautner has also been important in the development of the Ártala calendar. I do not adopt a complete model from any single publication. I examine the arguments and evidence behind it and develop individual elements further when I find good reasons to do so.
The bibliographies and source references provided with the articles are intended to make this process traceable. Readers who want to examine a claim more closely should be able to see what it is based on.
Where decisions are necessary
Historical sources leave many practical calendar questions only partly answered.
For the Ártala calendar, I have to decide, for example, when a month begins, how an intercalary month is determined and how different historical month names relate to one another.
I make these decisions using the available evidence, astronomical considerations and the internal logic of the calendar. Where several solutions appear defensible, I weigh them against one another.
The result remains a reconstruction. I want the reasoning behind each decision to be clear enough for others to examine and, where appropriate, challenge.
The Ártala calendar can change
Work on the Ártala calendar does not end when a version is published.
New scholarship can challenge an older assumption. A source I previously overlooked may change an interpretation. Sometimes I may simply discover that I classified something incorrectly or stated a conclusion with too much certainty.
When that happens, I change it.
I intend to document substantial changes to the reconstruction and its foundations. A previous publication is no reason to keep a position when the evidence supports a better one.
AI in my editorial work
I also use artificial-intelligence tools while working on the Ártala calendar.
They can help me organise extensive notes, develop outlines, revise language, prepare translation drafts and adapt material I have already researched for different formats. I sometimes use them when developing text drafts as well.
I remain responsible for the subject matter. I check historical claims and source references, assess the literature and decide which conclusions I publish.
I treat AI output as working material. It is not historical evidence.
Language models can produce errors that sound highly convincing. A polished paragraph is therefore no substitute for checking the sources.
I take responsibility for the final published version of each article.
If AI has played an unusually substantial role in a particular piece of content and that fact is relevant to understanding how it was produced, I may provide an additional note on that page.
Why I explain my process
The Ártala calendar deals with many questions that the surviving evidence cannot resolve with complete certainty. For me, being open about method is part of source criticism.
Readers should be able to tell which historical evidence supports a statement, where I rely on published scholarship and where my own reconstruction begins.
The same applies to the tools used to produce the texts.
What matters in the end is whether the reasoning can be checked: Which source supports a claim? How was that source interpreted? What conclusions follow from it?
That is the standard I want my work to meet.
Errors, sources and criticism
If you find an error, know of an additional source or disagree with one of my interpretations, you are welcome to contact me.
Concrete references to primary sources or scholarly literature are especially useful. Reasoned disagreement is valuable in a project that works with an incomplete historical record.
The Ártala calendar should develop alongside the research. That includes changing earlier conclusions when necessary.
