Germanic Indians

--- In cybalist@..., "William P. Reaves" <beowulf@...> wrote:


Sorry if I have gotten the name wrong.

> For the record, I don't believe that Odin was an immigrant. Tacitus
mentions
> that Mercury was the principle god of the Germanics tribes. (Odin is
> compared to Mercury elsewhere, in the names of the days of the week
for
> example). In Paulus Deaconus' and his predecessors work, roughly
400 to 500
> years later a Godan or Wodan and his wife Frea are mentioned. Later
in the
> Eddas, some 500 years after that, we find Odin and Frigg. The data
is
> consistant over time. I don't think there was enough time for a
local tribal
> god to become a pan-Germanic in that timeframe.
Aha. But you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't advocate Odin the
god being an euhemerisation (?) of a leader named Odin. Rather I
think there was a leader of a confederation of tribes who already
worshipped Odin as a god, and that that leader had a name that had
Odin in it (*Odin-something or *Something-Odin; rather like Tor-sten,
get it?)


>If so, where is the
> evidence? I believe that Odin is the Indo-European "sky father"
under a new
> name. He has most if not all of the attributes necessary for this
> identification. On the other hand, Tyr has only been associated
with the IE
> *Dyuaus Pater becaiuse of his name, not any attribute. Thus the
theory
> (built solely on a single etymological example) that Odin displaced
an
> earlier Sky-Father named *Tiu (a name recorded nowhere).
Aha. There is a lake Tissø on western Sjælland. And in the summer I
go swimming at Tisvilde.

>I find the
> argument rather flimsy and difficult to accept.
You find the linguistic evidence difficult to accept? Not the right
forum, I suspect. Personally I suspect Odin is related to Aton-Adonis
etc (you may reach for your smelling salt now).


>A stronger arguement in my
> opinion is that the IE *Dyuas Piter simply took on a new name in
the North,
> i.e. one of his designations or attributes in time became a proper
name.
> It's a much more likely scenario.
>
> >Very convincing, I must say. But why does Tacitus insist that the
Liburna
> image 'docet' that this religion is imported? Remember we are
> talking about a people near to the Ocean. Did Liburnans have ship-
model
> goddesses too? Were the boats that similar? Would Tacitus have
> been so sloppy as not to inquire into possible differences?
>
> I assume you are not "very convinced" by the questions that follow.
In the
> translation I have of the relevant passage in Germania 9, Tacitus
says "I
> have no idea what the origin or explanation of the foriegn cult is,
except
> that the goddess' emblem, a light warship, indicates that the cult
came
> from a foriegn land."
>
> I wouldn't characterize it as sloppy, but Tacitus seems to be
making an
> assumption of the cult's origin based on the goddess' emblem alone.
I take
> Tacitus at his word. There is little else to go on here. Also, I
cannot
> think of a Roman goddess with a weeping myth, common to the
Eygptian Isis
> and the Germanic Freyja, thus having heard the myth perhaps Tacitus
had to
> reach to Eygpt to find an appropriate parallel known to his Roman
readers.
Based on weeping and the boat alone?


> All is speculation. The evidence is too sparse to draw many
conclusions, but
> it is rather unlikely that an Eygptian goddess came to be
worshipped by a
> small band of Germans in 100 AD, don't you think?
Not in my scenario. And that is of course why I brought it up.

>We have no evidence of
> this. It is more logical to assume that this is another native
goddess
> designated under Roman interpretation. All we have to go on is the
emblem of
> a light warship, which we find associated with Freyja (through her
brother
> Frey). This is strengthened by the fact that Isis and Freyja have
similar
> mythic roles.
>
> >He mantains that the Germani must have arrived by sea to their
homes. In
> his theory, therefore, there is no room for contact with the
> Liburnae.
>
> Tacitus does not indicate from which direction the Germani arrived
by sea,
> and since he speaks of a densely populated kingdom to the North in
later
> chapters, we could with reason believe that the Germanii arrived in
Northern
> Europe from Scandinavia. There is some evidence in Germanic
histories that
> the Germanic tribes themselves believed that they originated in
Scandinavia.
If so, Tacitus would have mentioned it. And then he would have had
the same problem once over: from where did they arrive in Scandinavia?



>
> >If he observes evidence to the contrary, one would expect him to
go out of
> his way to disprove that the Liburna ship models (?)
> were related to the Suebian ones (just look at the antics of some
of us on
> this list trying to make the shoe fit ;-)). He doesn't. Hm!
>
> I cannot think of any other examples in Germania where he goes out
of way to
> disprove or prove any of the evidence he cites. It seems simply like
> observation and report (some of which are obviously second hand
reports,
> i.e. in regard to the most northern tribes and their environs.)
>
I think you misunderstand me here. He would have gone out of his way
to do that in his investigations and then reported the result,
without the reasoning. That's how people in general handle unpleasant
facts.

BTW I read somewhere on the net about Roman patrol craft on the
Danube and Rhine. Given that the region of of Liburna borders on the
Danube, might these be Liburnans? In which case it would be
convenient for them to be take-apart-able, the upper Danube gets
pretty shallow.



> Wassail, William

Actually, I *was* pretty convinced by the example. I just had a few
counter-arguments. But I suppose then you might perhaps have an
explanation too for the following:
Pliny the Elder (Naturalis Historia 2,170) says that Cornelius Nepos
mentions a rex Sueborum who around 59 BCE gave as a gift to the Roman
administrator in Gallia, Quintus Metellus Celer, some Indians; this
supposedly a proof that there was a "north-east passage" to India.

Torsten