This paper reconsiders the passage in Maxims I in which Woden is said to have constructed wēos, a word that can be understood to mean “idols” or “pagan shrines.” It compares the passage to various euhemeristic narratives concerning Woden (or Óðinn) preserved by authors such as Ælfric, Æthelweard, Saxo Grammaticus, and Snorri Sturluson, and it argues that the Maxims I passage has more in common with ideas expressed in the later Scandinavian sources than in the earlier homiletic or insular historiographical sources. This exercise in comparative euhemerism suggests that the Woden passage in Maxims I is indebted to a narrative that resembled either the story of Óðinn's misadventure with an idol (preserved in Gesta Danorum) or the story of Óðinn as the builder of temples and founder of pagan religion (preserved in Ynglinga saga). In either case, it appears that a euhemeristic narrative of the sort preserved by Snorri and Saxo circulated centuries earlier in England. Toponymic evidence lends support to this conclusion, as place-names such as Wōdnes dīc and Grīmes dīc bear witness to the early circulation of otherwise unrecorded ideas about Woden as a supernatural builder. Finally, the presence of the Woden passage in Maxims I is viewed as a manifestation of the poem's indebtedness to the tradition of the wisdom contest, a genre associated with Óðinn in Old Norse sapiential literature.

Place names serve a symbolic function in enforcing colonial power over landscapes. Within colonial locales, place names reproduce and reflect the ideological goals of settlers to reinforce or claim space for an individual, group or nation. One toponymically understudied colonial region where place names play a prominent role is the Antarctic, where the names of research bases promote the cultural power of settler nations to symbolically claim the continental landscape. As Antarctica is a geopolitically contested space, Antarctic research base names serve as an ideological purpose in reinforcing claims to the Antarctic, contrasting the ostensibly scientific purpose of research bases. This paper examines Antarctic research base names by categorising and interpreting their naming sources through a critical toponymic lens. This paper discusses general Antarctic naming trends and establishes possible reasons and outcomes of their employment, using three primary arguments: (1) Antarctic research base names are often nationalistic and reflect the implicit geopolitical goals of settler nations, (2) Antarctic research base names reflect and reproduce ongoing polar colonialism and (3) contestation over the naming of Antarctic research bases exemplifies the iconographical and cultural conflict between Antarctic nations. This paper seeks to provoke a future toponymic investigation into Antarctica and study Antarctic cultural landscapes more generally.