From: tgpedersen
Message: 15312
Date: 2002-09-09
> > >I see nothing here but a smear against me and a misrepresentation of
> >
> > What is it about this theory of a southeastern
> > component in
> > demographics and mythology in North West Europe that
> > makes it
> > anathema to so many? I fail to get it. Personally
> > I've earned a
> > specific injunction on this list against pursueing
> > this idea plus
> > several vicious personal attacks against which no
> > one intervened. Why
> > must this area of Europe be pristine and free of
> > outside influences
> > since the Bronze age?
>
> *****GK: Please don't be disingenuous Torsten. I think
> very few people would object all that strongly if at
> all (I know I certainly wouldn't) to your statement as
> put above. "The devil is in the details". For
> instance, I find Pritsak's theory that the younger
> futhark had to be the product of an individual or
> individuals familiar with the Turkic runic system
> which emerged in the 6th century quite intriguing and
> worthy of study. As is his view that Snorri created
> the whole "Odin" story to explain earlier contacts
> along the Volga between Baltic and Caspian.No one can
> deny the reality of Scandinavian connections with
> southeastern Europe, going back very far in time
> indeed (at least the 4th millennium BC according to
> one variant of the spread of IE in Europe), and
> continuing in various forms to our day. But when you
> attempt to take the Snorri tale of Odin from Asgard
> literally and place it in a firm 1rst c. BC setting
> (somewhat like Heyerdahl) that's a different kettle of
> fish. There is no evidence whatsoever for this,
> historical, linguistic,, archaeological etc etc etc..
> And your attempts to insist on desperately twisting
> all available facts to at least provide the veneer of
> a semblance of something plausible in the tale as
> literally put is what eventually earned you what you
> complain about.******