|
|
|
|
|
|
by moloch-hai
1247 days ago
|
|
|
Denmark is at the threshold of the Baltic sea. Anyone who, like the Carthaginians, could have sailed to the Baltic sea would get there via the North Sea (or down the Oder River). Such quibbling is beneath you. Carthaginian influence might or might not be more relevant than Tartessian. It depends on the facts. Explorers are much less likely to affect origins of a script than settlers or refugees who were there at the formative time. Has anyone suggested a Tartessian influence, or are you just making shit up? Hostility to revisiting old conclusions in the face of new facts is anti-science, but common, maybe moreso in history than in other fields. |
|
|
Then say what you mean. Why must the hypothetical Carthaginian explorers have reached the Baltic in order to trigger the start of runes? Why couldn't they stopped at the Elbe and had the same impact?
Your "could" is carrying a LOT of weight. Could they have sailed to the Shetlands? To the Faroes? To Iceland? To Greenland? To Vinland? Why, or why not?
> It depends on the facts.
What is your facts? I don't think you've said anything other than hand-waving "could". Is it a subset of the ones presented by Goering and Mailhammer? Or do you have other evidence, like we have physical evidence of the Norse presence in Vinland?
> are you just making shit up?
Are you?
As I understand your argument, the Carthaginians were literate and could sail along the Atlantic coastline of Europe (elsewhere we have an account of them reaching Britain and Ireland). Therefore, it's possible that they could have reached the Germanic peoples that way, and it's possible the Punic language could have influenced the creation of runes.
That's all you've presented.
But in that case, who else fits that pattern? The Tartessian people had a written language and could also reach Britain and Ireland from the Iberian peninsula.
There is nothing in your hypothesis which lets us resolve if it was Tartessians or Carthaginians who aided this bit of cultural diffusion.
Why do you focus so much on the Carthaginians, and disregard other peoples who also fit your model?
> Hostility to revisiting old conclusions in the face of new facts is anti-science
There you go again, making shit up about science again.
When an archeologist or geologist finds evidence of a flood, they do not revisit the old conclusion that the entire world, up to the top of the tallest mountain, was covered by water. Revisiting that old conclusion as if it were viable, without substantial new facts that cannot be explained by the existing model, is not scientific.
There was a conclusion that Finns were culturally and biologically from eastern Asia. In the US people used the racist slur "China Sweden", and wanted to bar them from entry under the Asian Exclusion Act. This conclusion is thoroughly discredited - for one, the genome of Finns is mostly Northern European. Revisiting that old conclusion as if it were viable, without substantial new facts that cannot be explained by the existing model, is not scientific.
Using each new fact as a reason for revisiting and discussing every single previous conclusion and pet theory, no matter how disproven or unsubstantiated, is not science.