I did manage to get to the article today. It was kind of on the skimpy side, but that's to be expected in a regular newspaper. I've got subscriptions to a couple of archaeology mags; maybe they'll have something on it.
But thanks for the kind offer of e-mail. If you ever need my address again, it's at [email protected]. I hope you at least talk to me; not many folks have any interest in Germanic or even European myth in this fandom.
That said, I do have some minor niggling points to make over the article. They called Wagner's opera 'The Nibelungenlied', but that's the title of the original German romance. Wagner's _opera_ is 'Ring of the Nibelungs'. Minor at best, but they should have tried harder for accuracy.
I'd also like to see the original paper. Beistle's conclusions might have some flaws; if nothing else, I'd always read that the Romans were the ones quick to pick up on other folks' myths and ideas. The Germans of the time tended to be rather insular and exceedingly distrustful of the Romans (the slave raids might have had something to do with that), something Tacitus comments on in his Germania. And the Siegfried legend was more Norse than German. True, the Norse of the time (mainly tribes like the Heruli and Svear) did come into contact with the Romans, mainly around Britain, in both trade and war. But this kind of cultural interchange Beistle's supposing would have required more prolonged contact (or so I believe, from my own writing), as well as contact on a 'everyday life' level, rather than between traders and mercenaries.
Though I will say this; there's been some evidence that Runic script was cribbed from Greek letters. It hasn't convinced me, but it's not impossible. Neither is Beistle's theory. I suppose it just reads too much like another 'Classical Diffusion' theory, where the doltish Teutons sit around waiting for the elevated intellectual Greco-Romans to enlighten them.
Again, Anon, my kudos to you for finding this article. Good luck, whoeever you are.
Anonymous --
I did manage to get to the article today. It was kind of on the skimpy side, but that's to be expected in a regular newspaper. I've got subscriptions to a couple of archaeology mags; maybe they'll have something on it.
But thanks for the kind offer of e-mail. If you ever need my address again, it's at [email protected]. I hope you at least talk to me; not many folks have any interest in Germanic or even European myth in this fandom.
That said, I do have some minor niggling points to make over the article. They called Wagner's opera 'The Nibelungenlied', but that's the title of the original German romance. Wagner's _opera_ is 'Ring of the Nibelungs'. Minor at best, but they should have tried harder for accuracy.
I'd also like to see the original paper. Beistle's conclusions might have some flaws; if nothing else, I'd always read that the Romans were the ones quick to pick up on other folks' myths and ideas. The Germans of the time tended to be rather insular and exceedingly distrustful of the Romans (the slave raids might have had something to do with that), something Tacitus comments on in his Germania. And the Siegfried legend was more Norse than German. True, the Norse of the time (mainly tribes like the Heruli and Svear) did come into contact with the Romans, mainly around Britain, in both trade and war. But this kind of cultural interchange Beistle's supposing would have required more prolonged contact (or so I believe, from my own writing), as well as contact on a 'everyday life' level, rather than between traders and mercenaries.
Though I will say this; there's been some evidence that Runic script was cribbed from Greek letters. It hasn't convinced me, but it's not impossible. Neither is Beistle's theory. I suppose it just reads too much like another 'Classical Diffusion' theory, where the doltish Teutons sit around waiting for the elevated intellectual Greco-Romans to enlighten them.
Again, Anon, my kudos to you for finding this article. Good luck, whoeever you are.
Ardashir