Re: [tied] Re: "Odin of Asgard"

Here I agree with George on all the major points (except in the matter of calling the Getae "Thracoid"). I have written time and time again on this list about the old confusion between the Goths and the Getae (so regrettably perpetuated by Jordanes and still ringing in Torsten's mind), and why the Massagetae were neither Gothic nor Getic, and not to be analysed folk-etymologically as "massa-geta-" but "mas-sagi-ta-". I have also enumerated the linguistic reasons for regarding Thracian _sensu stricto_ and Getic/Dacian (I believe the latter to be close to Proto-Albanian) as separate branches. As George says, Burebista (or Boirebistas, Byrebista, etc.) and Dekaineos (Dicineus) were Getic and had no real-world connection whatsoever with the Goths.

Of course the area controlled by the Getic kingdom was polyethic and multilingual. The Getic rulers and their high officials often sported foreign names (Celtic, Thracian, possibly even Iranian and Germanic). "Burebista" has no Getic etymology and is suspected by some to be of Bastarnian origin (a hypothesis that is difficult to evaluate, as we know next to nothing about the language or the onomastic habits of the Bastarnae); "Dekaineos" is almost certainly foreign (Celtic?) if, as seems very likely, derived from *dek^- 'accept, consider worthy or suitable', like Latin decor, dignus, decens, etc.

Finally, I agree that George positively flatters Snorri qua historian by comparing him to Pompeius Trogus :).

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: george knysh

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 5:17 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: "Odin of Asgard"

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote: > > > > > > (TP)Jordanes says something similar, > > > > ******GK: Like what exactly?****** > > XI (67) Then when Buruista was King of the Goths, > Dicineus came to > Gothia at the time when Sulla ruled the Romans. ******GK: "Buruista" (usually the name is spelled Burebista) was never "King of the Goths" but of the GETAE [he reigned ca. 82-44 BC], a Thrakoid people living principally on the territory of contemporary Rumania. It is accepted that Cassiodorus (Jordanes' source) confused his Goths with similar sounding names (Getae, Massagetae), and was thus able to give them a better "classical" pedigree. This is not very serious stuff of course.****** > Buruista received > Dicineus and gave him almost royal power. It was by > his advice the > Goths ravaged the lands of the Germans, which the > Franks now possess. *****GK: Since you later mention Strabo I think you should reread the relevant passages there (cf. 7.3.11 and 7.5.2). Now Strabo of course knew much better than Jordanes or Cassiodorus who Burebista and his entourage were. "Decaeneus" was Burebista's "deified" wizard. The "lands of the Germans which the Franks now possess" would seem( in Strabo) to be those of the Boii and Taurisci (Celtic tribes then) whom Burebista manhandled severely. Probably the areas of contemporary Czechia and Austria. All part of his fleeting empire-building which collapsed in 44 BC. Nothing to do with "Odin" I'm afraid.****** > (68) Then came Caesar, the first of all the Romans > to assume imperial > power and to subdue almost the whole world, who > conquered all > kingdoms and even seized islands lying beyond our > world, reposing in > the bosom of Ocean. He made tributary to the Romans > those that knew > not the Roman name even by hearsay, and yet was > unable to prevail > against the Goths, despite his frequent attempts. > >(TP) That the Goths ravaged Germania at Caesar's time. *****GK: The Getae (not the Goths who at that time were still in "Scandzia") ravaged what later (not in Caesar's time) became a part of "Germania". At any rate from the time of the arrival of the Marcomanni.***** > And I'm wondering > whether that Dicineus (Strabo: Decaeneus) wasn't > "Odin". *****GK: Nothing fits.****** >(TP) As I've said several times, what I'm proposing is > the > following: Let's assume for the sake of argument > that > what Snorri and Jordanes are saying is true, and > then > see where this takes us. Is it possible to > (re)construct > a (hi)story including these two sources which > doesn't > contain contradictions? But of course if you > proclaim > a priori that Snorri's account necessarily contains > nothing but falsehoods, then we don't have much to > discuss. *****GK: I think Pritsak's interpretation is at least defensible even if highly uncertain. As are other suggestions. But Snorri at face value is a dead end. And Jordanes' confusion (in this context) hardly saves him.****** > > >(Torsten): Based on aerchaeology? > > > > ****GK: No Torsten. Based on what we know of the > > history of the area from chronicles and > inscriptions > > much closer to the Augustan age than the Icelandic > > Pompeius Trogus fantasizing twelve hundred years > > later.****** > >(TP) Inscriptions, George? Proclaiming that they had no > common ruler? > And why resort to name-calling w.r.t Snorri? *****GK: That's quaint. You think that comparing Snorri to Pompeius Trogus is "name calling"? (:=)))*****