Re: "Odin of Asgard"

--- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> --- tgpedersen@... wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- tgpedersen@... wrote:
> > > > What was the question then (obvously I didn't
> > get
> > > > it)? Should Snorri
> > > > have mentioned the Volga?
> > >
> > > *****GK: Snorri's geography of southeast Europe is
> > not
> > > overly precise. He seems to think that the Sea of
> > Azov
> > > is part of the Don. But that is not the crux of
> > the
> > > "Odin" problem. And it is just possible that his
> > > "Tanakvisl" refers to some combination of Volga
> > and
> > > Don (well known to Scandinavian traders and
> > warriors
> > > of ca. 1000 AD). With one "kvisl" (fork) standing
> > for
> > > the Volga where it flows into the Caspian, and
> > another
> > > "kvisl" for the Don itself and the Sea of Azov
> > (Palus
> > > Maeotis) at whose "bosphorus" were the main cities
> > of
> > > the Bosphoran Kingdom. But with such an
> > interpretation
> > > of "Tanakvisl" ASGARD would be even further east,
> > in
> > > fact east of the Volga. This is all like sand
> > flowing
> > > though one's fingers... I'll get to the Bastarnae
> > > later.*****
> > > >
> >
> >(Torsten) I see. If you further add an assumption
> which is
> > "just
> > possible", the whole theory runs out through your
> > fingers.
>
> *****GK: Pritsak thought that the "kvisl" referred to
> the area where the Don and Donetz conjoin (look it up
> on a map). But the Don-Volga combination is also
> possible. It doesn't really matter which option one
> adopts. In the 1rst c. BC there is no room here for
> your "Odin" as discussed by Snorri. The Sarmatian
> complexes in this area didn't give a hoot about the
> Romans,

How do complexes give hoots about anything? Or, attempting
a translation: I assume that there are two kinds of evidence
here: chronicles and archaeology. As for the first, Snorri
says it happened, Jordanes says something similar, Appianus
(look it up in the postings here in cybalist) says Mithridates
sought to make the locals at the Don interested in a waging a
campaign against the Romans through Moesia, when he made his
tour around the Black Sea to attack Pommpey from the rear.
As for the second, according to the written sources "Odin"
never had actual contact with the Romans; he fled (or whatever)
out of foresight.

> and weren't significantly affected by their
> pressure (unlike the rulers of the Bosporan
> kingdom).[NB. In the Crimea it's the Romans who built
> "defensive forts" against the Scythians] And there was
> no Attila-like "barbarian" political configuration
> here either: Bastarnae, Yazigi, Scythians, Roxolani,
> Aorsi, Siraci, Alani== all went their separate ways.
> No "Odin" like ruler over them.

Based on aerchaeology?

> That's why your theory
> is (not seems) like sand flowing through one's
> fingers. Not because of some additional
> "assumption".****
> >
> > (Torsten)BTW how do you make combined rivers? AFAIK
> <kvisl>
> > is
> > a "branching", nor a "branch".
>
> *****GK: Probably in the same way in which you make
> the Sea of Azov a continuation of the Don. Or combine
> the Baltic, the North sea, the Atlantic and the
> Mediterranean into one "Varangian Sea". Or come up
> with Herodotus' configuration of Scythia etc etc etc.
> Old geographers could be very "creative".******

Well, it seems to me you are being the creative one here ;-).
Making up a confusion and then blaming it on the old geographers
hardly counts.

Torsten