The real history of Thor

Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Paganism, Taoism etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

The real history of Thor

#1  Postby Nevets » Mar 13, 2020 2:25 am

Thor is a Norse superman/God, in Norse Mythology

In Germanic mythology, Thor (/θɔːr/; from Old Norse: Þórr, runic ᚦᚢᚱ þur) is a hammer-wielding god associated with thunder, lightning, storms, sacred groves and trees, strength, the protection of mankind and also hallowing and fertility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor


But what is the truth about Thor? Why did Norse people have to be tough? And why did they have to become travellers?
It likely comes from the "The Hamburg culture", created around 15,500BC, and it was probably a culture created by Scandinavaens that had to migrate a little south during the youger Dryas, which was the last Ice-age. Also i am sure that the migration would not have been all friendly, and may have required a little invading, and conquering, in order to establish a Hamburgian stronghold.

The Hamburg culture or Hamburgian (15,500-13,100 BP) was a Late Upper Paleolithic culture of reindeer hunters in northwestern Europe during the last part of the Weichsel Glaciation beginning during the Bölling interstadial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg_culture


Another culture that was formed around the time of the Younger Dryas, was the Federmesser culture of 14,000BC.

Federmesser group is an archaeological umbrella term including the late Upper Paleolithic to Mesolithic cultures of the Northern European Plain, dating to between 14,000 and 12,800 years ago (the late Magdalenian)


Another culture that was made around this time, was the The Ahrensburg culture or Ahrensburgian. 12,900BC.

The Ahrensburg culture or Ahrensburgian (c. 12,900 to 11,700 BP[1]) was a late Upper Paleolithic nomadic hunter culture (or technocomplex) in north-central Europe during the Younger Dryas, the last spell of cold at the end of the Weichsel glaciation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrensburg_culture


Then the Swiderian culture, 11,000BC

Swiderian culture, also published in English literature as Sviderian and Swederian, is the name of an Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic cultural complex, centred on the area of modern Poland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiderian_culture


And the Maglemosian culture 9,000BC

Maglemosian (c. 9000 – c. 6000 BC) is the name given to a culture of the early Mesolithic period in Northern Europe. In Scandinavia, the culture was succeeded by the Kongemose culture and Tardenoisian culture.


And as we see, from my link above, this culture brings us back to Scandinavia, now that the Ice is melting

Now this brings me to my next point, that "All, Germanic-Languages are derived from Proto-Germanic, spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia."

All Germanic languages are derived from Proto-Germanic, spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages


So, what does this mean?
Well, it means that there is a slight claim that the Vikings might have gotten conquered by an Indian God of war, with a name distinctly similar to Superhuman, or, Superman. His name is, Subrahmanya.

Kartikeya (IAST: Kārttikeya), also known as Murugan, Skanda, Kumara,[4] and Subrahmanya, is the Hindu god of war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartikeya


Where does this claim come from? Well, it actually comes from "another" of those cultures. It is called, The Corded Ware Culture. It is a Culture from 2900BC, which i estimate as being pretty much parts of Russia

The Corded Ware culture[2] comprises a broad archaeological horizon of Europe between c. 2900 BCE – circa 2350 BCE, thus from the late Neolithic, through the Copper Age, and ending in the early Bronze Age.[3] Corded Ware culture encompassed a vast area, from the Rhine on the west to the Volga in the east, occupying parts of Northern Europe, Central Europe and Eastern Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture


Now these people brought back to Norway with them, a new language. Indo-European.

Between 3000 and 2500 BC, new settlers (Corded Ware culture) arrived in eastern Norway. They were Indo-European farmers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Bronze_Age


Now this would figuratively suggest that they bumped in to Subrahmanya.

So what happened to those Norse people after this theoretical meeting with Superhuman?

Well, as we have established, they went on to spread "both" Proto-Germanic "and" Indo-European, throughout Germanian territory.

To this day the Norse have remained unlatinised, and they speak Germanic, to this day.

Norwegian (norsk) is a North Germanic language spoken mainly in Norway, where it is the official language. Along with Swedish and Danish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_language


This also means, they know their history, and never had their history written out by the Romans, so they have no pre-romanised amnesia, like what Britain does, that does not have much knowledge of a British history pre-dating the Roman and Latin invasion.

We also know that Latinos are Hispanic and Latino Americans, from cultures such as Latin America

Latino or Latinos most often refers to: Latino (demonym), a term used in the United States for people with cultural ties to Latin America.
Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States
The people or culture of Latin Americ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino


And we also know that even Latin, derives from Indo-european

Latin (lingua latīna, IPA: [ˈlɪŋɡʷa laˈtiːna]) is a classical language belonging to the Italic branch of the Indo-European languages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin


This would suggest that at some point in history Italy got conquered by Latinos. And indeed, 1200,BC, Italy was invaded by Latins

The Latins (Latin: Latini), sometimes known as the Latians, were an Italic tribe which included the early inhabitants of the city of Rome. From about 1000 BC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins_(Italic_tribe)



There is a real debate to be had, on whether this Latin, in Italy, was put in place by Norse influence, or, the Indo influence, it really can only be one or the other.

The main historic peoples of possible non-Indo-European or pre-Indo-European heritage include the Etruscans of central and northern Italy, the Elymians and the Sicani in Sicily, and the prehistoric Sardinians, who gave birth to the Nuragic civilisation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#Pre ... _antiquity


Even Greek people are speaking an Indo-european language, so it is not them

Greek (Modern Greek: ελληνικά, elliniká) is an independent branch of the Indo-European family of languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language


So, it is beginning to look like the Vikings got their asses kicked by the Indos.

Or, did they? Well, lets see. The Norse language has certainly spread far and wide

The Germanic languages are a branch of the Indo-European language family spoken natively by a population of about 515 million people[nb 1] mainly in Europe, North America, Oceania and Southern Africa. The most widely spoken Germanic language, English, is the world's most widely spoken language with an estimated 2 billion speakers. All Germanic languages are derived from Proto-Germanic, spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages


And also, a very important word is Proto. Proto means, first

And Proto Greek was the first Greek language.

Proto-Greek: the unrecorded but assumed last ancestor of all known varieties of Greek. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proto-


But even that, was still Indo-european.

The Proto-Greek language (also known as Proto-Hellenic) is an Indo-European language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language


By the fact that when historians, probably mostly British, use the word, Indo-European language, with Indo first, would make one suspect they think Indo came first.

But is this true? That Thor got his hammer taken off him by Superhuman? Not in your nellie.

The language spoken by Indians, is Indo-Aryan.

Languages spoken in India belong to several language families, the major ones being the Indo-Aryan languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_India


The word Aryan itself is a dead give away. Aryan is Indo-european

the Indo-Iranian languages, itself a branch of the Indo-European language family. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages


But it is suggestive that there was a clash between Scandinavians, and Indians. Though, it could have been quite a friendly one. Perhaps those Scandinavians went around the world during the glacial migrations, and got an education.
And even the Indus Valley Civilisation, which is Indias first actual Civilisation, in the modern sense of the word, is actually only third millennium BCE.

the Indus Valley Civilisation of the third millennium BCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India


So, i would say if anyone got an education, the Indos did.

Now we know that the Anglos that conquered Britain in 410ad, were Scandinavians. As were the Jutes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles#/media/File:Anglo-Saxon_Homelands_and_Settlements.svg


As for the Saxons. Well they were from Germania, but doubtful they even know Germanic history, nor the name of the language they speak. Just foot soldiers.
Whilst the Saxons came from an area close to the scandinavian Angles area, they did not quite fall in it

This general area is close to the probable homeland of the Angles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxons


And the Saxons got Latinised and Catholicised with all the others that fell under the Holy Roman Empire

The Holy Roman Empire was a feudal monarchy that encompassed present-day Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech and Slovak Republics, as well as parts of eastern France, northern Italy, Slovenia, and western Poland https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/mo ... man-empire


But Scandinavia did not.

The Scandinavians launched two more attacks on Britain.
The Viking conqests,
Then the Norman conquests.

i think it is pretty safe to say, that by the time of the British empire, India Superhuman got conquested by Thor, a lot more than Scandinavia did during the efforts of the Romans, because even the Romans, were probably speaking a Norse tongue.

Now, my challenge to people on this forum, is to defeat this argument, and show how Thor, and Odin, suffered defeat like all others.
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 13, 2020 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The real history of Thor

#2  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Mar 13, 2020 2:51 am

Now if someone actually gave a shit. Not about the topic, but rather your spin. Believe it or not there are actual historical resources out there, and those don’t exist on Wiki. Frankly, i would fail a high school history paper for including one such wiki citation.

RS
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 388

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#3  Postby Nevets » Mar 13, 2020 3:05 am

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Now if someone actually gave a shit. Not about the topic, but rather your spin. Believe it or not there are actual historical resources out there, and those don’t exist on Wiki. Frankly, i would fail a high school history paper for including one such wiki citation.

RS


Well, if you wish to begin your argument by citing "source" as your issue, then Cite your own source to show how my source is incorrect.

If you do, i may then search for another source, and better source.
But until such times as you do, or you debunk what has already been written, i simply do not have to.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#4  Postby Nevets » Mar 13, 2020 3:05 am

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Now if someone actually gave a shit. Not about the topic, but rather your spin. Believe it or not there are actual historical resources out there, and those don’t exist on Wiki. Frankly, i would fail a high school history paper for including one such wiki citation.

RS


Well, if you wish to begin your argument by citing "source" as your issue, then Cite your own source to show how my source is incorrect.

If you do, i may then search for another source, and better source.
But until such times as you do, or you debunk what has already been written, i simply do not have to.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#5  Postby Nevets » Mar 13, 2020 4:29 am

Having personally travelled Greenland myself. It is an amazing place with amazing people. Friendliest in the world.
Ice-bergs. Whales. Inuits, living alongside Norse people. Qaqortoc. Narsaursuq. Nanortalaq. Might not have spelt them right. Not bothering to check.

Greenland (Greenlandic: Kalaallit Nunaat, pronounced [kalaːɬit nunaːt]; Danish: Grønland, pronounced [ˈkʁɶnˌlænˀ]) is the world's largest island,[d] located between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, east of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. It is an autonomous territory[10] within the Kingdom of Denmark. Though physiographically a part of the continent of North America, Greenland has been politically and culturally associated with Europe (specifically Norway and Denmark, the colonial powers, as well as the nearby island of Iceland) for more than a millennium.[11] The majority of its residents are Inuit, whose ancestors migrated from Alaska through Northern Canada, gradually settling across the island by the 13th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland


They even speak the same language.

Greenlandic became the sole official language in June 2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Languages


Greendlands earliest settlers, even referred to himself as Eric the Red. He was a Norseman, but.

The early Norse settlers named the island as Greenland. In the Icelandic sagas, the Norwegian-born Icelander Erik the Red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland ... settlement


But what is fascinating about Greenland, is the Inuits seem to like the Norse, and the Danes, and the Danes seem to look after those inuits. Genuinely.

Greenland has little major resources. They get nothing in return.

So rather than a war between Thor and Superhuman, did Thor meet Rati? A match made in heaven, meeting half way? She was the first person to show him love, and not make him fight for his right?

Rati (Sanskrit: रति, Rati) is the Hindu goddess of love, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rati


And Thor, "is" Superhuman? aka Sanat Kumara aka Santa Klaus...In return, did he give her the world? Even making sure, that everyone else, respects the Indians as being the first inhabitants of just about everywhere?

Rudolph the norse red indian?
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#6  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 7:07 am

Names, characters, businesses, places, events, locales, and incidents are either the products of the author's imagination or used in a fictitious manner. And any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental .
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#7  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 7:22 am

Nevets wrote:
Well, if you wish to begin your argument by citing "source" as your issue, then Cite your own source to show how my source is incorrect.


You don't know what the term 'source' means.

You appear to think that a source is something which supports the existence of something you've talked about, rather than supporting the argument you've made.

For example, and just one example because I cannot be bothered with the entire turgid crap you've splurted in this thread:

Nevets wrote:But what is the truth about Thor? Why did Norse people have to be tough? And why did they have to become travellers?
It likely comes from the "The Hamburg culture", created around 15,500BC,

The Hamburg culture or Hamburgian (15,500-13,100 BP) was a Late Upper Paleolithic culture of reindeer hunters in northwestern Europe during the last part of the Weichsel Glaciation beginning during the Bölling interstadial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg_culture


Your argument is that the belief in Thor, the warrior culture, and the activity of going Viking is related to the Hamburg Culture from the Palaeolithic.

Your citation merely points to the Hamburg Culture, showing that such a thing existed. What your citation doesn't do is establish any support for your contentions about the worship of Thor, the presence of a warrior culture, or the Viking period or its purported relationship with the Hamburg Culture.

So your source is actually completely worthless and has no bearing at all on anything relevant. You may as well not have cited it because it's not doing anything at all. This is the case with all your 'citations' and it's clear to all of us that this is because you're just not aware at all of what you need to do.

That aside, your argument is also fucking mental. That is also always the case with all your arguments.

There's a gulf of at least 15,000 years between the Hamburg Culture and the Viking period, the times are completely unrelated, the social organization and political structure of every involved nation and neighboring nation is completely different, the material culture, beliefs, and society have nothing whatsoever in common. I could write 10,000 words on why this is nonsensical make-believe and barely scratch the surface - you may as well have claimed it was aliens.

So what you've got is an assertion that is entirely uncorroborated, and logically delusional.

Theropod would fail a high school paper on account of including a wikipedia citation - personally, I wouldn't, but I wouldn't even allow you to submit such dross - I'd demand a complete rewrite and resubmission because I wouldn't want one of my students to so thoroughly fail in their most elementary duty of writing up factual accounts based on evidence - if you want to write fiction, write fiction... but don't pretend your crackpot fantasy supplants fact. To be honest, if this were the kind of paper you'd submit, I doubt you'd even be in my class anyway as you'd never have achieved the necessary grades to be there.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The real history of Thor

#8  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 13, 2020 8:24 am

Nevets wrote:Thor is a Norse superman/God, in Norse Mythology

FIFY.

Nevets wrote:
But what is the truth about Thor? Why did Norse people have to be tough?

Who said they had it though? At least more so than other barbarians?

Nevets wrote: And why did they have to become travellers?

Again, who said they had to? And didn't choose to?

Nevets wrote:
It likely comes from the "The Hamburg culture", created around 15,500BC, and it was probably a culture created by Scandinavaens that had to migrate a little south during the youger Dryas, which was the last Ice-age. Also i am sure that the migration would not have been all friendly, and may have required a little invading, and conquering, in order to establish a Hamburgian stronghold.

The Hamburg culture or Hamburgian (15,500-13,100 BP) was a Late Upper Paleolithic culture of reindeer hunters in northwestern Europe during the last part of the Weichsel Glaciation beginning during the Bölling interstadial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg_culture

It's called the Hamburg culture and not the Kopenhagen, Oslo or Stockholm culture for a reason.
More-over your source says nothing about it being created by Scandinavians.
Your source also shows no direct link between the Hamburg culture and the Norse god Thor.

Nevets wrote:
And as we see, from my link above, this culture brings us back to Scandinavia, now that the Ice is melting

Except they're virtually all irrelevant to the question of the Norse god Thor.

Nevets wrote:
Now this brings me to my next point, that "All, Germanic-Languages are derived from Proto-Germanic, spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia."

Which is itself an Indo-European language and by the time of the Angles and Saxons there was a clear split between Norse and European Germanic languages and ethnicities.


Nevets wrote:
So, what does this mean?

Almost guaranteed to not be what you think it means. :roll:

Nevets wrote:
Well, it means that there is a slight claim that the Vikings might have gotten conquered by an Indian God of war,

Nope. Not only were there no Indians then, there was no contact between the two regions whatsoever.


Nevets wrote: with a name distinctly similar to Superhuman, or, Superman. His name is, Subrahmanya.

Except Thor wasn't called a superhuman or hero, so that's abject nonsense.

Nevets wrote:
Where does this claim come from? Well, it actually comes from "another" of those cultures. It is called, The Corded Ware Culture. It is a Culture from 2900BC, which i estimate as being pretty much parts of Russia

Given your consistent bullshitting on historical topics, I don't give a fuck what you think, feel or estimate.
It also has fuck all to do with the Norse god Thor.

Nevets wrote:
The Corded Ware culture[2] comprises a broad archaeological horizon of Europe between c. 2900 BCE – circa 2350 BCE, thus from the late Neolithic, through the Copper Age, and ending in the early Bronze Age.[3] Corded Ware culture encompassed a vast area, from the Rhine on the west to the Volga in the east, occupying parts of Northern Europe, Central Europe and Eastern Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture

As usual your own source contradicts your 'estimation'.
More-over that culture was made up of different ethnicities and language groups and cannot be compared to Norse culture.

Nevets wrote:Now these people brought back to Norway with them, a new language. Indo-European.

They did not bring it back, they arrived with it.

Nevets wrote:
Between 3000 and 2500 BC, new settlers (Corded Ware culture) arrived in eastern Norway. They were Indo-European farmers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Bronze_Age

Once again, your source contradicts your claim. :coffee:

Nevets wrote:
Now this would figuratively suggest that they bumped in to Subrahmanya.

Except it does no such thing and would only be relevant if it was literally the case, which it isn't either.

Nevets wrote:
So what happened to those Norse people after this theoretical non-existing meeting with Superhuman?

FIFY and nothing. :roll:

Nevets wrote:
Well, as we have established, they went on to spread "both" Proto-Germanic "and" Indo-European, throughout Germanian territory.

No they didn't. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
To this day the Norse have remained unlatinised,

No they haven't.

Nevets wrote:and they speak Germanic, to this day.

As do the English, Dutch, Germans and many other nations/nationalities.

Nevets wrote:
This also means, they know their history,

As most nations in the world do.

Nevets wrote: and never had their history written out by the Romans,

Nor have any other nations.

Nevets wrote: so they have no pre-romanised amnesia,

No-one has. That's a fantasy of your own making.

Nevets wrote: like what Britain does,

They don't.

Nevets wrote: that does not have much knowledge of a British history pre-dating the Roman and Latin invasion.

Not only is that bollocks, any gaps in knowledge have to do with a lack of scribal tradition, not Roman mendaciousness.

Nevets wrote:We also know that Latinos are Hispanic and Latino Americans, from cultures such as Latin America

:lol: :rofl:
You've got that arse-backwards.
It also has fuck all to do with the question of Thor.

Nevets wrote:
This would suggest that at some point in history Italy got conquered by Latinos. And indeed, 1200,BC, Italy was invaded by Latins)

Nope. At some point tribes moved there which would later call themselves Latin.
Note that nowhere in your quote is there any mention of conquest.

Nevets wrote:
There is a real debate to be had, on whether this Latin, in Italy, was put in place by Norse influence, or, the Indo influence, it really can only be one or the other.

It was neither and there is no discussion about it. :roll:

Nevets wrote:
The main historic peoples of possible non-Indo-European or pre-Indo-European heritage include the Etruscans of central and northern Italy, the Elymians and the Sicani in Sicily, and the prehistoric Sardinians, who gave birth to the Nuragic civilisation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#Pre ... _antiquity

Indo-European is references to a shared linguistic history, not a monolithic culture or Indians.
Nor does this have anything to do with the question of Thor. :crazy:

Nevets wrote:
So, it is beginning to look like the Vikings got their asses kicked by the Indos.

Nope, neither Vikings nor Indians existed at that time.

Nevets wrote:
Or, did they?

No. No they did not.

Nevets wrote: Well, lets see. The Norse language has certainly spread far and wide

Not as wide as Spanish, English and German.
Not that any of that has anything to do with the question of Thor. :crazy:

Nevets wrote:
The Germanic languages are a branch of the Indo-European language family spoken natively by a population of about 515 million people[nb 1] mainly in Europe, North America, Oceania and Southern Africa. The most widely spoken Germanic language, English, is the world's most widely spoken language with an estimated 2 billion speakers. All Germanic languages are derived from Proto-Germanic, spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages

Once again, your quote does not support your claim, does not even mention Norse and actually contradicts your claim.
Iron Age Scandinavia =/= Norse.

Nevets wrote:
And also, a very important word is Proto. Proto means, first

Again, completely irrelevant to the question of Thor. Iron Age Scandinavia wasn't Norse.


Nevets wrote:
By the fact that when historians, probably mostly British, use the word, Indo-European language, with Indo first, would make one suspect they think Indo came first.

Nope. Nor is it relevant to the question of Thor. :crazy:

Nevets wrote:
But is this true? That Thor got his hammer taken off him by Superhuman? Not in your nellie.

No historian thinks that. It is entirely a fabrication of your own mind Nevets.

Nevets wrote:
The language spoken by Indians, is Indo-Aryan.

The language spoken by the people of Rivendel is Elfish. Both are completely irrelevant to the question of Thor.

Nevets wrote:
But it is suggestive that there was a clash between Scandinavians, and Indians.

Nope, because the Scandinavians are Indo-Europeans, which again refers to a shared linguistic history, not ethnicity.
No such clash happened.

Nevets wrote:Perhaps those Scandinavians went around the world during the glacial migrations, and got an education.

Nope.

Nevets wrote:And even the Indus Valley Civilisation, which is Indias first actual Civilisation,

First recorded actually, we don't know that it was the first.

Nevets wrote: in the modern sense of the word, is actually only third millennium BCE.

Which predates Norse and Thor by millenia.

Nevets wrote:
So, i would say if anyone got an education, the Indos did.

Naturally you would, since you haven't got a fucking clue as to what you're talking about. :crazy:

Nevets wrote:
Now we know that the Anglos that conquered Britain in 410ad, were Scandinavians. As were the Jutes

They were neither Scandinavians, nor Jutes. Nor is it relevant to the question of Thor.

Nevets wrote:
As for the Saxons. Well they were from Germania, but doubtful they even know Germanic history, nor the name of the language they speak. Just foot soldiers.

Complete fantasy. Stop trying pass your rectal matter as historical data. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:Whilst the Saxons came from an area close to the scandinavian Angles area, they did not quite fall in it

Nor did the Angles. Nor has either to do with the question of Thor.

Nevets wrote:
And the Saxons got Latinised and Catholicised with all the others that fell under the Holy Roman Empire

Completely irrelevant to the question of Thor.

Nevets wrote:
But Scandinavia did not.

Except that it did, eventually.

Nevets wrote:
The Scandinavians launched two more attacks on Britain.

No they did not. People living in what we now call Scandinavia launched many attacks on the British Isles.

Nevets wrote:The Viking conqests,

Which were Viking conquests, not Scandinavians and more than one.

Nevets wrote:Then the Norman conquests.

Normans weren't Scandinavians, no matter how many times you desperately try to paint them as such.

Nevets wrote:
i think it is pretty safe to say,

Given that virtually every single claim of yours in this OP has been false, you're in no position to draw a valid, let alone sound conclusion.

Nevets wrote: that by the time of the British empire, India Superhuman got conquested by Thor, a lot more than Scandinavia did during the efforts of the Romans, because even the Romans, were probably speaking a Norse tongue.

Pure gibberish, divorced from reality. :crazy:

Nevets wrote:
Now, my challenge to people on this forum, is to defeat this argument, and show how Thor, and Odin, suffered defeat like all others.

Once again you did not actually make an argument, you strung together a slew of counterfactual assertions and random Wiki quotes which did not actually support your claim, all the while running of on ever more irrelevant tangents. :naughty:
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Mar 13, 2020 10:16 am, edited 3 times in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30761
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#9  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 13, 2020 8:26 am

Nevets wrote:
theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Now if someone actually gave a shit. Not about the topic, but rather your spin. Believe it or not there are actual historical resources out there, and those don’t exist on Wiki. Frankly, i would fail a high school history paper for including one such wiki citation.

RS


Well, if you wish to begin your argument by citing "source" as your issue, then Cite your own source to show how my source is incorrect.

Your source isn't incorrect. It's that it rarely, if ever, supports your ludicrous claims.
More-over the burden of proof lies with you, not Theropod.

Nevets wrote:If you do, i may then search for another source, and better source.

No, it is entirely your responsibility to produce the best possible sources for the claims you make. Regardless of what your interlocutor does.

Nevets wrote:
But until such times as you do, or you debunk what has already been written, i simply do not have to.

Not legally, no. But rationally and honestly, most definitely. :naughty:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30761
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#10  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 13, 2020 8:27 am

Spearthrower wrote:Names, characters, businesses, places, events, locales, and incidents are either the products of the author's imagination or used in a fictitious manner. And any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental .

:this:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30761
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#11  Postby Svartalf » Mar 13, 2020 9:55 am

Your spin is silly, Thor is the Norse version of a very common Indo European Hammer/Thunder god, and all the spin you put on it is silly, since we have no evidence that neolithic people were even Indo European... as a matter of fact, our knowledge of Indo European history places them in the steppes of Russia and Central Asia in the bronze age, from where they expanded to Iran, India, and Europe.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 1920
Age: 50
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#12  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 9:56 am

we have no evidence that neolithic people were even Indo European.


A bit stronger: we have evidence they weren't. Not only in terms of material culture, but also genetic.

This is explained with the most parsimony by the fact that Nevets doesn't know what he's talking about as usual.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#13  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 13, 2020 10:01 am

Spearthrower wrote:
we have no evidence that neolithic people were even Indo European.


A bit stronger: we have evidence they weren't. Not only in terms of material culture, but also genetic.

This is explained with the most parsimony by the fact that Nevets doesn't know what he's talking about as usual.

:this:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30761
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#14  Postby Svartalf » Mar 13, 2020 10:13 am

Spearthrower wrote:
we have no evidence that neolithic people were even Indo European.


A bit stronger: we have evidence they weren't. Not only in terms of material culture, but also genetic.

This is explained with the most parsimony by the fact that Nevets doesn't know what he's talking about as usual.

thanks, I did not know that
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 1920
Age: 50
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#15  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 10:24 am

Svartalf wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
we have no evidence that neolithic people were even Indo European.


A bit stronger: we have evidence they weren't. Not only in terms of material culture, but also genetic.

This is explained with the most parsimony by the fact that Nevets doesn't know what he's talking about as usual.

thanks, I did not know that



There are dozens of papers on this - although I've read only a few - but I won't have access to them or my notes for a couple of months, however the earliest discussion arising from genetic evidence was in these:


https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/E ... 4599d40ece

Eight Thousand Years of Natural Selection in Europe, Matheison, 2015

The arrival of farming in Europe around 8,500 years ago necessitated adaptation to new environments, pathogens, diets, and social organizations. While indirect evidence of adaptation can be detected in patterns of genetic variation in present-day people, ancient DNA makes it possible to witness selection directly by analyzing samples from populations before, during and after adaptation events. Here we report the first genome-wide scan for selection using ancient DNA, capitalizing on the largest genome-wide dataset yet assembled: 230 West Eurasians dating to between 6500 and 1000 BCE, including 163 with newly reported data. The new samples include the first genome-wide data from the Anatolian Neolithic culture, who we show were members of the population that was the source of Europe's first farmers, and whose genetic material we extracted by focusing on the DNA-rich petrous bone. We identify genome-wide significant signatures of selection at loci associated with diet, pigmentation and immunity, and two independent episodes of selection on height.


https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14507

Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia, Allentoft, 2015

The Bronze Age of Eurasia (around 3000–1000 BC) was a period of major cultural changes. However, there is debate about whether these changes resulted from the circulation of ideas or from human migrations, potentially also facilitating the spread of languages and certain phenotypic traits. We investigated this by using new, improved methods to sequence low-coverage genomes from 101 ancient humans from across Eurasia. We show that the Bronze Age was a highly dynamic period involving large-scale population migrations and replacements, responsible for shaping major parts of present-day demographic structure in both Europe and Asia. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesized spread of Indo-European languages during the Early Bronze Age.


My bold


And the Journal of Indo-European Studies collates the most relevant papers.

http://www.jies.org/

Sadly, my subscription is tied to my university account, so I don't have access for quite some time.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The real history of Thor

#16  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Mar 13, 2020 10:48 am

Nevets wrote:
theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Now if someone actually gave a shit. Not about the topic, but rather your spin. Believe it or not there are actual historical resources out there, and those don’t exist on Wiki. Frankly, i would fail a high school history paper for including one such wiki citation.

RS


Well, if you wish to begin your argument by citing "source" as your issue, then Cite your own source to show how my source is incorrect.

If you do, i may then search for another source, and better source.
But until such times as you do, or you debunk what has already been written, i simply do not have to.


I’m not beginning an argument. I’m highlighting the absolute lack of rigor in your efforts. You do know that anyone can edit a wiki page, right? So what happens if I go edit every single one of your links to wiki? Would that invalidate your entire dog and pony show?

I know it’s asking quite a lot of you, but please stop for just a moment and ask yourself what your ravings would look like if those wiki pages were altered purposefully to make you look the fool. Have you even considered such an outcome?

The reason I would fail any student submitting a paper with wiki citations, besides those mentioned above, is because at the start of the year I would make it abundantly clear to my students that some things are not acceptable anytime ever. Using the works of others and claiming them as your own (plagiarism) would also qualify for immediate failure, and would likewise be something each student would fully comprehended at the start of the semester. If then such a paper hit my desk I would take it as a professional failure on my part to get across just how important it is to provide citations and sources which both reputable and consistent. Wiki is none of those things

No, you do not have to provide any other sources, and you have yet again missed the mark by several dozen light years. I’m not challenging any of your ranting bullshit. That crap is simply not important enough to me that I would expend one watt of energy to refute. Others are better equipped, and educated in the relevant fields, to undertake that task. What I am attempting to get across to you is that your post(s) would be much easier to defend and strengthen with proper citations. The way you present your position is self defeating, and I'm trying my very best to tell you how. You are under no obligation whatsoever to alter you posting style, but you should be fully aware that using wiki at the exclusion of all other sources is self defeating.

It’s not the content. It’s not the subject matter. It is you refusal to expend the effort to cite actual expert historians. That refusal indicates just how seriously you take these things, which is not at all, and why I would mark your efforts with a failing grade.

RS
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 388

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#17  Postby Fallible » Mar 13, 2020 11:18 am

Nevets wrote:Now, my challenge to people on this forum, is to defeat this argument, and show how Thor, and Odin, suffered defeat like all others.


Wow...who cares?
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 50754
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#18  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 13, 2020 11:30 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
we have no evidence that neolithic people were even Indo European.


A bit stronger: we have evidence they weren't. Not only in terms of material culture, but also genetic.

This is explained with the most parsimony by the fact that Nevets doesn't know what he's talking about as usual.

thanks, I did not know that



There are dozens of papers on this - although I've read only a few - but I won't have access to them or my notes for a couple of months, however the earliest discussion arising from genetic evidence was in these:


https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/E ... 4599d40ece

Eight Thousand Years of Natural Selection in Europe, Matheison, 2015

The arrival of farming in Europe around 8,500 years ago necessitated adaptation to new environments, pathogens, diets, and social organizations. While indirect evidence of adaptation can be detected in patterns of genetic variation in present-day people, ancient DNA makes it possible to witness selection directly by analyzing samples from populations before, during and after adaptation events. Here we report the first genome-wide scan for selection using ancient DNA, capitalizing on the largest genome-wide dataset yet assembled: 230 West Eurasians dating to between 6500 and 1000 BCE, including 163 with newly reported data. The new samples include the first genome-wide data from the Anatolian Neolithic culture, who we show were members of the population that was the source of Europe's first farmers, and whose genetic material we extracted by focusing on the DNA-rich petrous bone. We identify genome-wide significant signatures of selection at loci associated with diet, pigmentation and immunity, and two independent episodes of selection on height.


https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14507

Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia, Allentoft, 2015

The Bronze Age of Eurasia (around 3000–1000 BC) was a period of major cultural changes. However, there is debate about whether these changes resulted from the circulation of ideas or from human migrations, potentially also facilitating the spread of languages and certain phenotypic traits. We investigated this by using new, improved methods to sequence low-coverage genomes from 101 ancient humans from across Eurasia. We show that the Bronze Age was a highly dynamic period involving large-scale population migrations and replacements, responsible for shaping major parts of present-day demographic structure in both Europe and Asia. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesized spread of Indo-European languages during the Early Bronze Age.


My bold


And the Journal of Indo-European Studies collates the most relevant papers.

http://www.jies.org/

Sadly, my subscription is tied to my university account, so I don't have access for quite some time.

:cheers:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30761
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#19  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 12:36 pm

Fallible wrote:
Nevets wrote:Now, my challenge to people on this forum, is to defeat this argument, and show how Thor, and Odin, suffered defeat like all others.


Wow...who cares?



I didn't even read that... can't be bothered to invest any time in yet another sham thread... but what a clownish thing to write! :lol:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The real history of Thor

#20  Postby Fallible » Mar 13, 2020 12:39 pm

It’s pathetic.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 50754
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Other Religions & Belief Systems

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron