Viking mythology and all that goes with it

Yeah, isn't that too cool? Those two kids are not just looking at a finders fee, they're looking for a HUGE finders fee!
Andthey've found more stones at Jellinge - now that's exciting, because the royal runestones have actual writing on them and so might give us a lot of information. Not to mention that the more runestones with actual info on them they find, the bigger the chances are of the runes actually gaining "alphabet" status (runes are not considered a written language - it's a political thing). That would mean that the Norse culture would have to move from pre-history (archaeology) to history, which entails an influx of money into the research. That would mean I can get a paying job. That'd be nice...
 
No, they already do in Sweden, but as far as "science", the science of the study of the human past is divided between archaeology and history (and to some extent, paleontology). One of the criterias that a culture has to fulfill to be considered a historic society, rather than a pre-historic one, is that the society has to have a written language. Runes are not considered a written language. This leads to a huge caffuffle for those that wish to research vikings and Norse culture, and the whole thing is a huuuuuuge mess of politics (worthy of several pages, but this is long enough!) that stretches as far back as the Romans.
 
What is so political about determining the statis of runes? Well, I suppose if runes were elevated to a written language then that would elevate the statis of the Norse Vikings and the Slavs especially (and every other peoples that used the system including the Etruscans), and people would then have to admit to their achievements. People are often stubborn and do not want to rewrite history. Meh, why do politics have to play a role in everything :(

The university I attend has a course on Anglo-Saxon Old English...using Beowulf of course. Its not an in depth course like Latin, but oh well, close enough. I am sure there are course on ON somewhere....
 
Like I said, it is a very long and multifaceted story and not meant for this forum, but basically it comes down to people of non-Germanic descent looking down on the Germanic tribes as barbarians and lesser human beings right from the age of the Romans clear into present day science. Like you said, if the Norse were considered a historic culture, it's elevate the status of their achievments, and that never did, and still does not sit well with the Greco-Roman descendants.

The Etruscans, however, did not use runes. They used a whole another alphabet, that still to this day has not been translated. It is one of pre-history's major puzzles, just like the whole Linear A vs Linear B script.
 
Tyra said:
No, they already do in Sweden, but as far as "science", the science of the study of the human past is divided between archaeology and history (and to some extent, paleontology). One of the criterias that a culture has to fulfill to be considered a historic society, rather than a pre-historic one, is that the society has to have a written language. Runes are not considered a written language. This leads to a huge caffuffle for those that wish to research vikings and Norse culture, and the whole thing is a huuuuuuge mess of politics (worthy of several pages, but this is long enough!) that stretches as far back as the Romans.
What is required for it to be a writen language exactly? what are the criterias? Being a language and being written is not enough?
 
Apparently not. Don't ask me, because I totally think runes are a written language. Books were not written in runes (as far as we know), but then many other "written languages" were only used for accounting and so on, and still were classified as "written languages". The real issue is, like I said, that Germanic tribes were barbarians, wild men from the north, lived like animals and were not very smart. That is how the Romans depicted them, so that people would see the necessity to send troops to defend the poor Celts from the horrid Germanic Barbarians (Caesar was in big personal debt and needed to wage a war to make som money, so he set his PR machine to work making my ancestors look as dangerous to civilization as possible). This thinking has been carried on down the line for centuries since - in the last century you had Dumèzil with his religious research, basing all of it on the same premises. His job as a scientist who was sponsored by Moussolini, was to make the Roman offspring look better than the Germanic offspring, in stark contrast to the German scientists of the era. And so it goes. The Norse have become a sacrificial lamb in this regard. As a culture, they have so much in common with so many historic societies of the era (we shared the Danelaw with the historic Anglo-Saxon population), but it is the fact that the runes are not considered a proper alphabet that makes this possible. If you remove that obstacle, it'd be really difficult for the Graeco-Roman fans to deny that even barbarians were human.
 
I can imagine Hitler didn't help either. And that neo-nazi organizations take over all the old pagan symbols. Didn't some norwegian organization take the suncross as their symbol a few years ago?
 
Yeah, it's used quite a bit by the neo groups over here. And you're right, because what Hitler accomplished was the thing many have said in the other thread - he and his friends made it difficult for anyone to say that they wanted to study anything closely related to Germanic history or pre-history without being shunned. Nothing really happened in that field until the seventies again, so the "pro-graeco-romano" folks got to have the floor well into the 80's. M Gimbutas being one of the people who carried this legacy in Europe, and J P Mallory here in North America. Both are very famous researchers. For a more in-depth discussion on this, read Colin Renfrew's "Archaeology and Language".
 
Hey guys/(girls?) am new here and I am not gonaa read through pages and pages of jibber so I will ask anyway.
WTF is with Amon Amarth and the whole "viking" thing? Personally I think it is a little far fetched.

But f**k me sideways they are an awesome band anyway :worship:
 
Tyra said:
The Etruscans, however, did not use runes. They used a whole another alphabet, that still to this day has not been translated. It is one of pre-history's major puzzles, just like the whole Linear A vs Linear B script.

You caught my attention here (ok, guess that's not very hard). I want to know more! And what are these scripts?! YOu can just link if you feel like it.
 
TheLastWithPaganBlood said:
You caught my attention here (ok, guess that's not very hard). I want to know more! And what are these scripts?! YOu can just link if you feel like it.

Well, the Etruscans lived in Etruria, which later became incorporated with the Roman empire, while the people of Latium spoke Latin. They were part of the founders of Rome and thus the Roman Empire. The Etruscan language is, however, not an Indo-European language (unlike Latin), which makes it very interesting, because at the point in time that it existed, there were hardly any such languages in the European area. As a matter of fact, the only non-Indo-European languages I can think of as existing in that era were Iberian and Basque. The Basque language is the only such language still in existance. So, Etruscan can potentially give us much information about pre-Indo-European populations, only the language has not been deciphered. It is a variant form of the same alphabet the Phoenicians used, which eventually was adopted but the Greek and the Romans into our own A, B, C's. Nothing funny there, it's just that there are not enough remains that have writing on them for us to deciper the whole language. Either way, the written language is not runes, which is all I was getting at with that.
Linear A on the other hand, is a neat mystery! About 2000 BC a system of writing that consisted of pictograms developed on Crete. It is generally called Cretan Hieroglyphic Writing. It was replaced about 1600 BC by Linear A, which in turn was replaced by Minoan Linear B at about 1450 BC. Linear B consists of 87 different signs, so it's not an alphabet, but it's also not a hieroglyphic or pictogram form of writing. It is, instead, a syllabic alphabet - each sign has its own sound. Linear B was deciphered by Michael Ventris in 1952, and it turned out that the language was a very early form of Greek. Linear A, though, still has not been cracked. It cannot be read as Greek. In that case, the Minoans, who used Linear A, may not have been descendants of the Greek at all! The Minonas would have developed the hieroglyphic language and then Linear A for their very own language, and then they must have been conquered by Greek peoples from the mainland (this is supported by the archaeology). The new ruling class would have adapted Linear A to suit their own language, thus creating Linear B. So what language did the people of Crete speak before then, and where did they come from? We won't know until Linear A is cracked, and that in itself has huuuuuuge consequences for all sorts of scientific research (such as "where did Indo-Europeans first come from?")!
There are interesting sites on the net about this, but I cannot remember any off the top of my head that I care to stand by. Google "Linear A" and see what you can find.
 
Tyra said:
Odin. (Look, a short post! Bet you didn't know I could do that!)

Well maybe 1 after millions of long posts, and the one above my reply (this post.. duh)

Bout the runes thing, you can say alot about it, but basicly its just silly it isnt considered written imo

And another thing, how could you decipher a written language? where/how do you start? All i could think of is searching words that are used in the modern languages in the region of the language you want to decipher (shit weird sentence, ino)
 
Ventris did it the same way they break military encryption-codes. He started with the name of the Island of Knossos. Then he compared it to Etruscan och Greek and tried to find similarities. This is also similar to how the Rosetta stone (Egyptian hieroglyphs) was cracked, and a common way to do such things. Take a known and compare it to another possibly related known language and (hopefully) find similarities. In some cases it involves mathematical formulas etc.
 
Which general purpose Nordic iron age book/books do you consider(or think is based on your own research) the most accurate Tyra? I’m asking because I’m tiered of everything I read is trying to push some agenda. Most Swedish books I have are made by amateur researchers that are trying to make the ancestors look as good as possible, outright ignoring sources that tell something that is different from their own view and don’t even debate it.
 
He he, it's almost easier to get mad and tell you which books not to read! Prime example: Maja Hagerman. Talk about hidden agenda! There is just so much bullshit out there, but also a large amount that was accurate at the time it was written, but, ten years later, sadly outdated.

In terms of "general purpose", the book that most universities in Sweden seem to be using (and to which I am very partial because the author happens to be one of my professors) is #2 in a series of books named Arkeologi i Norden (used to be called Arkeologi i Sverige). It is available in almost any library in Sweden (heck, it's even available in my library in Abbotsford, BC). It puts the Norse into a European perspective, and the editor has made every effort to include materials written by others, who may and may not be of the same opinion about things as he is himself. That way the text is not as biased as most other books on the market. I think there is a third installment to the series (but I don't own it, so I can't swear on it) which has more stuff on the culture up until the Middle Ages.
If you let me think on it while I am away at blòt this weekend, maybe I can think of something not quite so looooong...
 
Tyra said:
He he, it's almost easier to get mad and tell you which books not to read! Prime example: Maja Hagerman. Talk about hidden agenda! There is just so much bullshit out there, but also a large amount that was accurate at the time it was written, but, ten years later, sadly outdated.

In terms of "general purpose", the book that most universities in Sweden seem to be using (and to which I am very partial because the author happens to be one of my professors) is #2 in a series of books named Arkeologi i Norden (used to be called Arkeologi i Sverige). It is available in almost any library in Sweden (heck, it's even available in my library in Abbotsford, BC). It puts the Norse into a European perspective, and the editor has made every effort to include materials written by others, who may and may not be of the same opinion about things as he is himself. That way the text is not as biased as most other books on the market. I think there is a third installment to the series (but I don't own it, so I can't swear on it) which has more stuff on the culture up until the Middle Ages.
If you let me think on it while I am away at blòt this weekend, maybe I can think of something not quite so looooong...

Thats the key. This may be what im looking for, I'll try to borrow it. Maybe even buy it, though litterature of this type tend to be rather expensive.

If theres anything else you can recommend on the top of your head? can be anything really, I mean books dealing with more specific subjects, english or swedish. The other forum members might be intersested aswell.
 
Larsson said:
Which general purpose Nordic iron age book/books do you consider(or think is based on your own research) the most accurate Tyra? I’m asking because I’m tiered of everything I read is trying to push some agenda. Most Swedish books I have are made by amateur researchers that are trying to make the ancestors look as good as possible, outright ignoring sources that tell something that is different from their own view and don’t even debate it.


Eh... no. Quite the contrary. Like Herrman Lindquist. He's one of those people that if I met him I would probably just punch him in the face.