Odin - source separation?

http://wadbring.com/historia/index.htm

Sagans verkliga landskap?

"Utmed Hunnebergs västra och södra sidor ligger gravfälten från järnåldern som på rad. Detta område där Göta älv påbörjar sin väg söderut från Vänern tillsammans med området runt Kinnekulle i öster menade Carl Otto Fast måste vara en viktig del av Eddadiktningens landskap, omnämnt i bl.a. Voluspa, Vegtamskvida och Grimnismal liksom i Beowulf och Bjarkarimur. Göterna ville han ha söder om Dalbosjön och svearna söder om östra Vänern - se kartan över sagans landskap.

Läser man de gamla sagorna och med öppet sinne förlägger händelserna till Vänerområdet istället för till Mälardalen så blir man förundrad över hur väl allt stämmer..."

Justin, do you know if someone has done an analysis of the oral tradition and it's trustworthyness of the Nordic sagas. I'm not comfortable with using the trustworthyness of an oral tradition of the inner mediterranean sea from around 700-800 BC and using the same analysis in Scandinavia 1500 years later. There has to be to much difference between them.

Johan Lindqvist I'm sure it's interesting, but since I haven't read it all, what is the link to Odin, and where in all the pages on that site is it written?

Remi, yes. There is lot of material on that question. More than any of us could read in a lifetime.

There is some disagreement but I think most scholars would say that the Nordic sagas are exactly like Greek epic poetry in two ways that matters most. First, the intricate and unusual metrical structure was an aid to memory and a deterrent to change. Second, both societies had a professional class of bards and a warrior elite that knew the stories so that change would have been difficult.

The academic disagreement really starts with the prose sagas. A key point of the Parry/Lord Thesis is that the quality of the oral tradition begins to decay dramatically when it is written down. Most people think that many of the prose sagas we have are based on (now lost) metrical compositions and therefore preserve a lot of earlier material, but there is wide disagreement about how much the original tradition was tampered with in the process of writing.

One significant way that later Norse sagas differ from their Greek counterparts is that pre-Christian Norse culture was formed around the idea that kings were descendants of Odin and Frey. Many academics think that some of the genealogies that survive have been tampered with to give upstart dynasties a false descent in order to legitimize them. The problem is that there is very little agreement about which ones.

One of the best-accepted quibbles is the descent of the Kings of Wessex from Odin. I think every academic working in the field believes that Cynric has been grafted onto an authentic pedigree.

I've seen many other arguments like this. Some persuade me, and some don't. In the end, the most conservative approach is the one Harald and I both advocate for Geni -- if you accept any piece of a saga as evidence of anything, you have to accept the whole saga as written (with footnotes to explain any problems). It doesn't work to pick and choose among academic theories.

Of course the most obvious signs of grafting is the grafting of Odin's pedigree onto the Christian tradition - the various genealogies showing the descent of Nordic kings (and Odin himself!) from Noah and Adam are fine examples of the grafter's art.

Unless we take them completely seriously, and argue that they were part of pre-Christian traditions in the Nordic countries, of course. I don't think anyone thinks that's a sustainable argument.

I'll certainly add information about the burial site of anyone (including Odin) when someone shows me the reference text from which it is descended, and that text is clearly making that claim. I won't add it based on a 21st century tourist brochure.

Thank you, Justin Durand and Harald Tveit Alvestrand for explaining this to us.

Now, if you please, how would you link this to the genalogical standards. Where would there be a divergence between genealogical linkage as genealogists uphold it, and linkage that is not upholding a genealogical standard?

Another problem with using the sagas for genealogy is that historians aren't generally interested the same questions as genealogists. Historians are interested in tracing the history of a text, not in whether the minor pieces (like the genealogies) are real. For the most part, modern history regards the truth about genealogical relationships to be "unrecoverable".

Another problem is that scholarship has moved forward from the kinds of analysis common in popular books. And, no matter how much scholarship you do, Odin is a religious figure more than a historical figure. For example, scholars like Hilda Ellis Davidson talk about paganisms (plural). The idea is that pre-Christian northern Europe had a particular god, often named Odin or Wotan, but different in every area although the stories about him were often the same or similar. In some places he was the head of the gods. In others, the head was probably Frey or Tyr (or a similar god called by a different name).

In this modern view, the stories that have come down to us (say through Snorri Sturluson) are only a very small part of a tradition that was much more diverse. In other words, it's just an accident of history that we have the stories we have and not one of the other versions.

This kind of thinking goes back to Jacob Grimm (one of the Grimm brothers), who was actually one of the outstanding scholars of his generation (19th century). Jacob Grimm had the idea that the archaic Norse / Germanic / Celtic religion was more or less similar throughout northwestern and central Europe. Grimm showed how many ancient historians like Tacitus and Nennius preserved pieces of the original.

Grimm's theory was there was a god Tvisco who was produced from stone, father of Mannus, the father of mankind (we get our word man from Mannus). Mannus had three sons: Ingvio, Istro, and Irmin who were the ancestors of the all the Germanic tribes.

In the Scandinavian tradition that has survived for us Tvisco came to be called Búri, Mannus became Bor, and Ingvio became Odin. Ingvio (Odin) was the father of Nerthus (Njord), father of Fravio (Freyr) and Frauja (Freyja).

Justin, please don't go around my question. Saga, fairytale, history, genealogy. This is important for people to understand. What is the genalogical trustworthyness of all of these sagas?

Geni is a genealogical site, here we are interested in the genealogies, not the historians point of view. Please explain " For the most part, modern history regards the truth about genealogical relationships to be "unrecoverable"

Im looking forward to the explanation of the difference in the science between history and genealogy. That should be very educational for a lot of Geni users. I really think we should start a discussion topic about that one. :-)

Remi, I think it is impossible to apply the "genealogical standard" to a case like this. If it were easy there would be a solution already.

The real question is, "What should we do when people reasonably disagree?"

For each of us, working alone, we can make decisions ad hoc. We can choose to include a link or exclude it.

But in a collaborative environment, how do you decide if there is no doubt that the relationship is correctly stated from an ancient source, but you can't agree about whether that source is reliable? If there is no reasonable way to decide, how do you decide?

No reason to be rude, Remi. I'm explaining a complicated and nuanced view. Maybe you could take my notes and do it in three sentences. I can't.

Finally my thought from my last few messages ...

One of the main problems I see with Geni is that there was a decision early on to amalgamate sources rather than preserving their differences.

So, we have Odin a god with all his relationships to Auðhumla, to dwarves, etc. overlaid with Snorri Sturluson's euhemerized accounts. (Euhemerize = turning a myth into history by reducing gods to humans.) And, the underlying religious original is itself probably overlying an older pan-Germanic mythology (as I explained above).

It would be easier (perhaps) to accept something along the lines of Thor Heyerdahl's theory that Odin was originally a great warrior who led his people out of Asia in the 3rd century and that his name or story was later mingled with a native god.

I don't know if that's such a good way to work. Not because I'm skeptical about Heyerdahl's theory (although I am), but because it's just a theory.

I think the question shouldn't be "What should we do when people reasonably disagree?", but ""What should we do when the sources disagree?"

You and I have no problem coming to an agreement, we just compare Our Sources. But the amateurs on Geni doesn't have our knowledge with sources, their trustworthyness, their usage, and which ones to use.

If it is impossibele, to apply a genealogical standard to these ancient questions, why are they a genelogical question at all? If it is not possible to apply a genealogical answer to the question, the line should stop there. Genealogy is about facts, not fiction! Even in a collaborative site like Geni.

For all thoughs that want an unproven genealogy, they should keep it in their own personal site, not on a collaborative one. We should strive for the common truth.

Justin, why do think I'm being rude? I just stated that in my point of view you didn't answer my question, if that is being rude I don't how to answer you without being rude.

I want to keep this discussion mainly on a genelogical level and context, in that view the historians view is of lesser importance to me.

Remi, it's a surprise to me that genealogists aren't interested in the work of professional historians. I do see, however, that many genealogists still think of their work as a "science", whereas historians confronted that problem a generation ago and decided that history is definitely not a science.

Science is based on forming hypotheses and testing them by conducting experiments. Hard to do that with history.

History is based on developing a narrative by interpreting sources that might themselves be accurate, inaccurate, or partly accurate. At every turn history involves evaluation.

Every good historian recognizes that there is often room for disagreement. And just about every field of history is full of scholars who vehemently disagree with each other's interpretations.

Now I don't understand anything, Justin.

In my heck of the woods, both history and genealogy is a science. We have doctoral degrees of education in the science of history. and genelogy is an education at some of the science faculties at the norwegain colleges, which I have been a student of.

Genealogists, like me, are absolutely interested in the science of history, like the educations are here in Norway. History is absolutely considered a science.

I'm developing hypothesis in my genealogy almost every week, I'm not testing them by conducting physical experiments, but I'm testing them with searching through different sources, and there is a difference between genealogy and history, maybe, since I find 100% sure source for my genealogical hypothesis while historians have a larger problem with that. And if I'm as a genealogist are not able to find trustworthy enough sources, than my geneaology stops there, as the science it is, compared to historians that will probably make a narrative made of more or less accurate source or not.

If you look at a relatively simple text, say the Ynglinga Saga, you'll see that historians disagree about how to treat it.

Some historians think that it preserves an authentic tradition (which is very different from saying it is true). Some think that's it's a pile of rubbish, cobbled together to make a continuous narrative. Probably most focus on the narrative break at Ingjald, which suggests that Ingjald's story might have been grafted onto an older tradition and that the later Norwegian kings wanted to get the prestige of being connected to the Ynglings.

When I said that modern historians regard the truth about genealogical relationships to be "unrecoverable", I mean that literally. In the Ynglinga Saga historians don't spend time worrying about whether the genealogy is correct. The important question is whether it is an authentic tradition.

Many historians have grave doubts about the main premise of genealogy -- the idea that anyone can string together a bunch of different documents over hundreds of years and come up with a "family tree". Yes, each generation seems to be connected, but the overall effort is open to doubt. If you're 70% or 80% sure of each generation, by the time you get back a dozen generations the overall certainty level is very low.

So from a historians point of view, anyone who gets back to a figure mentioned in the sagas has already indulged in too much wishful thinking. They would say, forget the sagas and concentrate on the real weaknesses in that chain. As an example, I had one professor who, having seen the evidences, nevertheless refused to accept that Queen Elizabeth II could prove descent from William the Conqueror with any reasonable certainty ;)

Remi, I already explained that history is not a science. It is not accepted as a science by the hard sciences and it's not accepted as a science by most modern historians. Those who think it is really a science after all do it by re-defining science so that personal opinions count as evidence ;)

Of course, even here in the US it is still possible in some places to get a Master of Science degree in history, although the normal history degree is Bachelor or Master of Arts. The difference is that the science degree focuses on historical methodology -- the science of using statistical analysis, the science of preserving manuscripts, etc. This is not history as science. It is the science of using tools.

Sorry Remi, the webpage cant localise different places on that site, you have to find the index and click on the topic forntid/vikingatid and then "sagans landskap" and gefiionmyten etc

it is called the västgötaskolan. That "Swedens" Sweden/Norways stories/sagas is better placed in westsweden and eastnorway.. not in feckin Uppland - whick was not called Uppland at that time. It is incredible how false the nationalstate oficial history is - - atleast geographically.

this is of interest for many things - clues to where the families lived and so on.. maybe they had farms or lands in what is called Uppland today - but they didnt live there or come from there..

but as an official historian you can still claim they did just because they "owned" lands there..

Interesting website in many regards! You will learn more about what is now West Sweden - Bohuslän was ofcourse Norweigan then!! : )

.. and Remi - you were interested in the Genialogy part of this aswell - They have done tests of the male DNA. The most amount of I-type is around Västergötland - around 53 percent. And the landscapes around - it goes like in a string from south east Sweden to West Sweden - and up to East Norway - as the Ynglinga - and Odin move...

I doubt DNA traces will bring anyone much further than the historical or mythological claims made by norse, saxon, keltic or any other royal dynasties in their aspirations to be related to the Gods.
I find it easier to accept these clearly mythological claims than many other constructions and claims, simply as they reveal what genealogy was about in for instance the early medieval times. It is very easy to understand, that the presence of Odin and Sigurd Fafnisbane is based on speculation and wishful thinking. Instead of eradicating these connections, it would be interesting to find out more about who made these claims, when and why.

It is much more difficult with the false connections between historical persons, when there is no adequate documentation, and no motivation for why these persons are placed in relation to each other. It would be great if focus on this site (Geni) would slowly move towards more and better references, documentation and discussion - not only in regards of the most speculative mythological, biblical and ancient lineages, but also the trickier from historical times, where the claims have to be based on some sort of documentation.
Such work is slowly being made, and I admire and respect those who make these efforts to raise the level of credibility on this site. I sense that Geni is moving from focus on quantity to attention to quality, just like many of us probably after a while are saturated with grand relatives - if you manage to pass into the early medieval times, there is no bottom until you literally hit Adam, Eve and God Almighty. You will be related to them all.

I just wanted to say that in any means - you must falsify the official explanation - as long as it is not based upon a broad angle of social science - and as you say that they are mythological - if - they should fit geographically to areas in Sweden today that are waaay out of any reasonable distance. Remember, they didnt have cars at that time.. The west of Sweden and East of Norway worked in a synergy effect, closely related and close geography.. Also , Norweigans does not falsify their Ynglingatraces, officially.

Pontus, you make a very important point. Genealogy is about history but there is also a history of genealogy. Until the early 19th century genealogy was only for the nobility. They used it to claim lands and titles, and to glorify their family history. They weren't doing genealogy the same way we do, and they weren't doing it for the same reasons. We can build on their work, but it's good to be always just a little skeptical.

Johan, did you know that Brian Sykes (the man who launched the field of genetic genealogy) nicknamed the founder of I1 "Odin" in his book Blood of the Isles? I like to joke that the I1 people in Scandinavia are descendants of Odin, and the R1b people are descendants of Frey ;)

Johan Lindqvist they did have ships. Trade between Norway and the Mediterranean is fairly well documented; the fact that most people stayed close to home does not mean that all of them did.

In a more recent century, the wars between Norway/Denmark and Sweden in the 1700s included several regiments raised in western Norway; these reached the battlefields (mostly in southeastern Norway / southwest Sweden) by walking, and when the war was over, they walked back.

A particular story featured on Norwegian TV recently was about a man who petitioned the king to have his marriage annulled so that he could marry his lady-love; he walked from Trondheim to Stockholm to argue his case, and after failiing to convince the King's courts, he walked back.

MOST people stayed put. The kings, warriors and people with a mission... did not.

Sure, but that is not what i was talking about : )
More how one place comes to develop a civilisation (have you played that game on computer?) over thousands of years. When or if an Oden comes with new technology or another culture that brings an upsving to the country they come to the areas which already were developed. The I- haplotype regions. No?

So, i think we could be into something here. The myths become no longer myths when you look at the right places. Im a geographer with focus on human geography. I think all perspectives must be looked on before we remake the pussle.

The "Västgötaskolan" has a lot of perspectives that has never been looked at because the nationalstate has its own constructed collective memories. But everybode who comes from Västergötland knows that the land is full of tombs etc.. Megalites. Rich fields that could feed many people of that time -. today many lives around Stockholm. But those areas - connected to the saga world by its names - is a construction from the 16th century and so on.. Uppsala is actually many places and most of them in Västergötland.. Also Birka is a construction with theory-impregnated start, and later they used different methods for its use..

The real Birka that Adam of Bremen talked about - is much more likely Köpingsvik on Öland - much larger areas!

... and the huge tombs in Västergötland - more and larger than todays Uppland (that had another name already 500 yrs ago) has not been digged out and discovered!!! - the reason is that it could definetely destroy the image that Uppsala is north of Stockholm..

Indiana Jones - here we come!

This is slightly off-topic because it deals with the realism of the sagas rather than the truth of the sagas, but it is very impressive to me. This research has been making the rounds in the past year, but here's a nice, reliable link. The basic idea is that meta analysis of the sagas shows they present a realistic world.

http://www.heritagedaily.com/2014/01/how-interconnected-characters-...

To Justin Swanström: When I look at internet I find a lot of such new-written things about sagas / vikings. Heritagedaily is a another magasine who want to sell their short stories about this. Short stories do magasines all the times made. It is because of people let themselves cheat of these short stories without substance. You better buy a book about this topic / material.

To all out there: For how long time shall we arguing this Odin abd sagas ? My proposal is to follow what is written IN THE SAGAS.

Anfred, in general I agree with you. (I have dozens of books about the sagas. My unfinished Master's thesis was about how the sagas and chansons de geste shaped cultural identity.) But this article in Heritage Daily is new work. Breaking news. You will find it only in academic journals for now. It will be years before you see it in popular books.

Another thing we agree about -- follow what is written in the sagas. Anything else is a guessing game.