--- On Wed, 7/1/09, tgpedersen <
tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> GK: Again: Saxland northern or southern did not include the
> steppes of the Tysza basin in Snorri's time. There are sources on
> Icelandic medieval geography you could consult.
> >
Snorri was talking about events preceding his own by more than a
millenium. 'Saxland' would have had the territory the predecessors of
the inhabitants of Saxland in Snorri's time possessed, whichever way
the predecessors were defined.
****GK: I'm afraid not. You are totally confused (Snorrism will do that to you). Anatolia was "Tyrkland" to him because that's what it was in the 12th/13th c. Ditto "Gardariki" (in Scandinavian terms). Again, I urge you to consult works on medieval Icelandic geography. At least browse through Pritsak's "Origin of Rus": there are many refernces there for further study.****
The basic difference of our views on Snorri as a historian here is
that I think he is drawing on native trasditions, and you think he
doesn't have a clue and made it all up.
****GK: Snorri was certainly working on the basis (partly) of relatively recent Viking traditions (Gardariki, Tanakvisl, Vanaland et sim.) But his euhemerizing manipulations thereof are his own (unless some recent predecessor had already done this) We've been here before. Snorri's inventions do not fit the facts of the time he is allegedly describing. Wise investigators have seen this for a very long time. It seems you never will.*****