Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 10:52:17 GMT -5
The finns also had their "cycklopean walls". In a much more common scale than lets say, the horse-hide-tent-luving mongols, who were nomads over all. What "cycklopean walls" in Finland are you talking about?
For example:
Jätinkirkot (Giant's churches) Hiidenkiukaat ( devil's....stoves?) Muinaislinnat (Ancient fortresses)
Quoting your previous post on the matter:
"Guess what? We have concrete evidence of "cyclopean walls/fortresses" in the general/"Russian" area (sorry, nothing in Finland) from the Proto-Indo-European period. That would be the Bronze Age era in western Eurasia right after "the polished stone age" (REH code for "Neolithic")."
Jätinkirkot time upfrom 3500 BC. So Finland had their cycklopean walls just around those times, if not before.
As a reference to the king of "architecture" they represent, I shall quote the finnish Wikipedia on the subject. I had to translate it myself, because the English version was limited and lacked the essential description. The link is here, if you want to c/p to a translator and see how well it manages, hehe. wikilink: fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A4tinkirkko
Jätinkirkot/Giant's churches (3500 - 2000 BC)
"Their size varies alot from 10x10 metres to 40x60metres. Thickness of walls varies from 3 to 8 metres, and height reaches up to 2 metres. There is no mortar used in the making of the stone walls, neither are the stones arranged very precisely. The size of the stones varies a lot, but in general terms can be measured by “a man’s moving capasity”
Comparing to what REH said: “Another factor has added to the impetus of Hyborian drift. A tribe of that race has discovered the use of stone in building, and the first Hyborian kingdom has come into being – the rude and barbaric kingdom of Hyperborea, which had its beginning in a crude fortress of boulders heaped to repel tribal attack. The people of this tribe soon abandoned their horse-hide tents for stone houses, crudely but mightily built, and thus protected, they grew strong. There are few more dramatic events in history than the rise of the rude, fierce kingdom of Hyperborea, whose people turned abruptly from their nomadic life to rear dwellings of naked stone, surrounded by cyclopean walls – a race scarcely emerged from the polished stone age, who had by a freak of chance, learned the first rude principles of architecture. (p354)”
I say it is a clear match.
Same as when referring you: "cyclopean" (clear back in 1830) referred to very large stone ashlars of irregular size fitted together (without mortar) to form architectural structures. Howard used the term in that exact sense.
An earth-scan on a Giant's Church.
There are 48 known Giant's churches in Finland. More are found every year or two.
But wait, there's more! A bit later on, and younger make, but I'd like to put it here just to make it obvious and clear, that Finland too HAS some old cycklopean structures! It seems, that the readers here are not well aware of this. Very understandable, because no one in Finland really cares, and thus we don't advertise them a lot. And also a lot of them have been destroyed away from new construction, and new sites which are found, lack thorough research.
Hiidenkiukaat/ Devil's Stoves (2000 BC ->)
These are ancient graves. The first of this type date to late stone-age, but the early ones do not include the stone sarcophagus, which is typicalt for these ones. Check here, to see it on the inside: fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kivikin_kuninkaanhauta#/media/File:The_Kings_Graves.jpg
Kuninkaanhauta ("King's grave") in Panelia. 4 metres tall and 36metres split.
The oldest Devil's Stove in Finland dates to 2000 BC and can be found in Uotinmäki.
Muinaislinnat / Ancient fortresses 1500 BC - 300 Ac.
Unikkolinna (Unikko=flower, linna=fortress) in Hauho, as seen at 1875 and pictured in the book ”Concerning ancient relics in the region of Hauho". ater on, the rocks were rolled off the cliff and put to new use.
The fortress of Hakoinen, as seen in 1845 and published in ”Finland främstäldt i teckningar”
Päälinna = main fortress, esilinna = pre-fortress/courtyard/whatever. Kaivo=well, asuinrakennus=living quarters, torning perutus = foundations of a tower
There are 400 (known) Ancient Fortresses in Finland.
Other
Various unidentified and unstudied structures. As an example, the Jatulinpatsaat (Jatulin=giant's, patsaat=pillars) of Tornivaara, in Kemi. (Torni=tower, vaara=hill) I just love these descriptive names.
Nowadays badly forested. Picture from a dictionary, and found here: jumalasuomi.tripod.com/TORNIVA.GIF
I hope no one has to, after this, tell me that Finland has no stone structures, fortresses or other stuff like that. And if someone does further insist that there aren't, I welcome them to visit me. I live about 2 miles form an ancient fortress, and it doesn't go anywhere by saying that it's not there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 11:29:13 GMT -5
Venaala said... "I don't think anyone really wants to say that Hyperborea IS Russia!" I don't think the Hyperboreans are Russian, but Two-Gun based them on Medieval Russians. Tex (and I know for a fact that REH scholar Morgan Holmes thinks so as well) And I base them on 3000 BC. Finland. For many fitting reasons, which I do not see so well supported by the Russia theory. Mr. Holmes can come and dicuss it with me, if he wants, and I will concider our thought and ideas of equal value.
|
|
|
Post by deuce on Sept 15, 2016 10:31:31 GMT -5
Jätinkirkot/Giant's churches (3500 - 2000 BC)
"Their size varies alot from 10x10 metres to 40x60metres. Thickness of walls varies from 3 to 8 metres, and height reaches up to 2 metres. There is no mortar used in the making of the stone walls, neither are the stones arranged very precisely. The size of the stones varies a lot, but in general terms can be measured by “a man’s moving capasity”
Comparing to what REH said: “Another factor has added to the impetus of Hyborian drift. A tribe of that race has discovered the use of stone in building, and the first Hyborian kingdom has come into being – the rude and barbaric kingdom of Hyperborea, which had its beginning in a crude fortress of boulders heaped to repel tribal attack. The people of this tribe soon abandoned their horse-hide tents for stone houses, crudely but mightily built, and thus protected, they grew strong. There are few more dramatic events in history than the rise of the rude, fierce kingdom of Hyperborea, whose people turned abruptly from their nomadic life to rear dwellings of naked stone, surrounded by cyclopean walls – a race scarcely emerged from the polished stone age, who had by a freak of chance, learned the first rude principles of architecture. (p354)”
I say it is a clear match.
Same as when referring you: "cyclopean" (clear back in 1830) referred to very large stone ashlars of irregular size fitted together (without mortar) to form architectural structures. Howard used the term in that exact sense. No, it is not "a clear match". You obviously never looked at the link in that same post on "Cyclopean masonry". It was put there for a reason. Here is the pertinent quote: 'Cyclopean', the term normally applied to the masonry style characteristic of Mycenaean fortification systems, describes walls built of huge, unworked limestone boulders which are roughly fitted together. Between these boulders, smaller hunks of limestone fill the interstices. The exterior faces of the large boulders may be roughly hammer-dressed, but the boulders themselves are never carefully cut blocks. Very large boulders are typical of the Mycenaean walls at Mycenae, Tiryns, Argos, Krisa (in Phocis), and the Athenian Acropolis.The very term "cyclopean" comes from the belief of Classical Greeks that the walls of Mycenae and other sites could only have been built by giants (ie, Cyclopes). "Cyclopean" structures have to include large stones/boulders beyond "a man's moving capacity". If a man could move a stone by himself, no need for a giant. I'd like to see you quote an archaeological source that calls any of Finland's old stone relics "cyclopean". Hell, just google "finland cyclopean". There are no such structures, but there are on the Russian steppes. I will note in that passage you quoted I used "ashlar" when I should have typed "boulder". Mea culpa on that one. This below is a textbook example of a cyclopean wall.
|
|
|
Post by deuce on Sept 15, 2016 10:51:27 GMT -5
Jätinkirkot time upfrom 3500 BC. So Finland had their cycklopean walls just around those times, if not before. Jätinkirkot/Giant's churches (3500 - 2000 BC)
"Their size varies alot from 10x10 metres to 40x60metres. Thickness of walls varies from 3 to 8 metres, and height reaches up to 2 metres. There is no mortar used in the making of the stone walls, neither are the stones arranged very precisely. The size of the stones varies a lot, but in general terms can be measured by “a man’s moving capasity”
Comparing to what REH said: “Another factor has added to the impetus of Hyborian drift. A tribe of that race has discovered the use of stone in building, and the first Hyborian kingdom has come into being – the rude and barbaric kingdom of Hyperborea, which had its beginning in a crude fortress of boulders heaped to repel tribal attack. The people of this tribe soon abandoned their horse-hide tents for stone houses, crudely but mightily built, and thus protected, they grew strong. There are few more dramatic events in history than the rise of the rude, fierce kingdom of Hyperborea, whose people turned abruptly from their nomadic life to rear dwellings of naked stone, surrounded by cyclopean walls – a race scarcely emerged from the polished stone age, who had by a freak of chance, learned the first rude principles of architecture. (p354)”
I say it is a clear match.
There are 48 known Giant's churches in Finland. More are found every year or two. But wait, there's more! A bit later on, and younger make, but I'd like to put it here just to make it obvious and clear, that Finland too HAS some old cycklopean structures!
Muinaislinnat / Ancient fortresses 1500 BC - 300 Ac. Unikkolinna (Unikko=flower, linna=fortress) in Hauho, as seen at 1875 and pictured in the book ”Concerning ancient relics in the region of Hauho". ater on, the rocks were rolled off the cliff and put to new use. There are 400 (known) Ancient Fortresses in Finland.
I hope no one has to, after this, tell me that Finland has no stone structures, fortresses or other stuff like that.
No one is trying to "tell" you that "Finland has no stone structures, fortresses or other stuff". I haven't said that, nor has anyone else. You're not being "repressed". Stop playing the victim. As I pointed out in the post above, you simply do not know what "cyclopean" means when it comes to architecture. "Cyclopean" means that very large boulders are involved, stones so big only a Cyclops (ie, a giant) could lift one by himself. Not just one big stone at the bottom of the wall, either. Very large boulders are characteristic of cyclopean masonry, top to bottom. They usually form a major part of it. Robert E. Howard's description of the Hyperborean fortesses fits that definition. Your "Giant's Churches" do not, nor do any of the other examples you've provided. What you apparently think is "cyclopean architecture" is simply dry stone construction. A link: www.drystone.org/history/My great-grandfather was a stonemason and a master at drystone construction. A cellar and a stone dam he built still survive. Some of the stones are 70+ kilos. Those structures are not "cyclopean". Neither are your "Giant's Stoves", "King's Graves" and all the rest. Find me a reputable archaeologist that says they are. The Newgrange tumulus (circa 3000AD, see below) is far more impressive and better-built than anything you've shown, but nobody tries to call it "cyclopean". You just keep grasping at straws. You have your own thread on Finland, but you just keep shoving this crap into this thread. Stay on topic and keep it Howardian.
|
|
|
Post by deuce on Sept 15, 2016 11:51:12 GMT -5
I have been hesitant to quote this or that, because atm. I am not able to check the books myself, to see what it really red there. Most of the REH Conan stories are on the net. Just google the title and "gutenberg".
|
|
|
Post by deuce on Sept 15, 2016 12:17:33 GMT -5
We are just speculating and playing with similarities here. It started from me reading something about it, and getting exited by the facts that much of it reminds me of my own home-country.
But while we are at it, wont you let us speculate and let our imaginations run wild with ideas? No harm done, right? And the more exited we get, the better, no?
Still playing the victim, Venaala? You were given complete free rein to "speculate" all of your non-Howardian daydreams on this thread: swordsofreh.proboards.com/thread/42/armies-hyborian-age-morgan-holmes?page=2Go get excited and speculate over there. Oh, but you chased me over to this thread. Why didn't you just let your imagination run wild with the cyclopean giants of Suomi-land on that thread? It seems you don't want to do it unless you're fighting someone else. You cried about not being allowed to fly on the rainbow wings of imagination, but when given carte blanche to scribble out whatever dreams might come to you, you came here, to a topic titled "According to R(obert) E. H(oward)". I posted this on the "Armies" thread (link above) to you: "Wow. I say the Finns are cool and suggest that you soar off into your own creative world of fiction (we need more fantasy based on Finnish folklore) and I'm "accusing" and "abusing" you?
By all means, take a "break" and let your daydreams run wild!
Let nothing stand in your path."After I posted that, you never, ever posted again in that thread. Instead, you chased me over to this thread. It makes absolutely no sense. You were given exactly what you supposedly wanted and you ignored it. Then you come over to this thread and want to turn it into some sort of "Finnish Hyborian Fanfic" page. That isn't going to happen. You were given your own thread. You might want to use it.
|
|
|
Post by bront on Sept 16, 2016 3:14:04 GMT -5
A few good references here on this thread to Howard’s Hyperboreans ( although I don’t understand Deuce posting the stocky depictions by the artist McBride from the Medieval Russian Armies collection Osprey publishing in the opening posts of this thread, that and his erroneous if not fanciful assertions that the Hyperboreans are based on the Russians). Hyperboreans are not Russians, not Slavs, early Slavs had been mostly an unwarlike agricultural people that reared flocks and herds, REH never described the fortress dwelling Hyperboreans as such. To compare the Hyperboreans to the Russians is just speculation, unsupported by text in the core material. As for King Tomar of Hyperborea. Tomar is an old Indo European name. REH could have picked up the name from various sources. For instance the 10th century Tomar who was an earl, a Jarl, of the Danes, came to Limerick, got up to all sorts of mischief starting with the burning of the monasteries of Iniscaltra, Muckinnis and Clonmacnois. Much more likely since REH was very well versed in the Irish annals. So why the run down on so much unrelated material to do with the Russians. Nor are they, the Hyperboreans, Finnish. The Finns descendant from hunter gatherers, originally from the Urals, that gradually made their way to Finland from the Baltics around two thousand years ago, somewhat displacing the earlier arrivals, sparse groups of Lapps. Most of the history of the Finns had to do with subjugation under the Swedes and Russians who also culturally advanced and influenced the developed of Finland. Nothing written by REH suggests Hyperboreans are Finnish. Note that the Finns speak a non Indo European language that belongs to another language family. The confusion by some Posters to relate both the Russians and the Finns with the Hyperboreans has to do with the geographical location of Hyperborea which corresponds to north east Europe. Bottom line, REH never said that Hyperboreans where Russians or Finns. The Hyperboreans began as a rude barbaric kingdom, eventually became a civilised Hyborian power although more aloof than the other Hyborian nations. Hey man! Good to see someone new, and I like you already! I'd make a quote of all your previous posts, but I don't really know how to do that. xD I'm hopeless that way...
Anyhow, I totally agree, that this thread here has slipped way, way far from the actual writing of REH on the subject. I have been hesitant to quote this or that, because atm. I am not able to check the books myself, to see what it really red there. Some context seems to be a little aloof of the context, yeah...and spiced up with a lot of this and that, which is purely fan-fiction and ideas. And fan-fiction is always equal with other fan-fiction, isn't it?
I don't think anyone really wants to say that Hyperborea IS Russia! Or that it IS Finland. We are just speculating and playing with similarities here. It started from me reading something about it, and getting exited by the facts that much of it reminds me of my own home-country. And Deuce started this thread to prove me wrong and to oppose my idea! So that is what is going on here, pretty much. Sorry about that.
But while we are at it, wont you let us speculate and let our imaginations run wild with ideas? No harm done, right? And the more exited we get, the better, no? I think it only a good thing, that even the few lines that REH has written about the subject, has expanded out of those lines into great, vast, wide and wild ideas! It is ofcourse a bit silly, that we refer to what we know of the actual world in comparison. But then again...wasn't that what REH wanted to pass with his "age undreamed of" aswell? The glimpse of a possibility of it once being so.
Oh....and about "Nor are they, the Hyperboreans, Finnish. The Finns descendant from hunter gatherers, originally from the Urals, that gradually made their way to Finland from the Baltics around two thousand years ago, somewhat displacing the earlier arrivals, sparse groups of Lapps." What about the Giants, which the lapps - in their own tales - conquered the land from, in the age undreamed of?
Hello Venaala,I have visited the REH forum from time to time It's all for fun here. Deuce is o.k., very informative fellow on many aspects of REH works and history in general, well respected by many here on that score, although he can get a little 'colourful' at times if you don't see certain things his way heheh. I was pointing out that I beleievd that there was no real basis to accord Finland and Russia with REH's Hyperborea. Having said that, the last thing that I would ever want to do was hinder the imagination of others. If you view REH's Hyperborea as some sort of prehistoric Finland or Deuce identifies Hyperborea with medieval Russia that is fine with me. Let your imaginations run wild
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 5:17:35 GMT -5
We are just speculating and playing with similarities here. It started from me reading something about it, and getting exited by the facts that much of it reminds me of my own home-country.
But while we are at it, wont you let us speculate and let our imaginations run wild with ideas? No harm done, right? And the more exited we get, the better, no?
Still playing the victim, Venaala? You were given complete free rein to "speculate" all of your non-Howardian daydreams on this thread: swordsofreh.proboards.com/thread/42/armies-hyborian-age-morgan-holmes?page=2Go get excited and speculate over there. Oh, but you chased me over to this thread. Why didn't you just let your imagination run wild with the cyclopean giants of Suomi-land on that thread? It seems you don't want to do it unless you're fighting someone else. You cried about not being allowed to fly on the rainbow wings of imagination, but when given carte blanche to scribble out whatever dreams might come to you, you came here, to a topic titled "According to R(obert) E. H(oward)". I posted this on the "Armies" thread (link above) to you: "Wow. I say the Finns are cool and suggest that you soar off into your own creative world of fiction (we need more fantasy based on Finnish folklore) and I'm "accusing" and "abusing" you?
By all means, take a "break" and let your daydreams run wild!
Let nothing stand in your path."After I posted that, you never, ever posted again in that thread. Instead, you chased me over to this thread. It makes absolutely no sense. You were given exactly what you supposedly wanted and you ignored it. Then you come over to this thread and want to turn it into some sort of "Finnish Hyborian Fanfic" page. That isn't going to happen. You were given your own thread. You might want to use it. Pardon me, but I cannot quote to your "Russia, Not Finland" posts, on another thread. Neither can I really reasonably drag the very Russian characteristic photo collection from here to another forum, or pick a single comment or claim from here and try to find where it belongs to in other threads, just to answer it. I am only here, because responding to this thread on another thread would make no sense, and most of this threat is about painting Hyperboreans as russians.
Please use your own advice, and post all such Russia vs. Finland comparison in any thread you think it belongs to, and we'll continue there.
Also, please do do not use such words as "silliness" and "crap" for describing my posts. That is highly insulting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 15:13:10 GMT -5
Did I forget to mention that finns are known for stealing their brides from other tribes? Even in Kalevala, Lemminkäinen steals his Kyllikki from the neighboring tribe. It used t be a THING! The tradition still lives, in wife-carrying competitions!
Sorry if someone gets annoyed by me posting here, but this thread still seems to be going on about russians. I got to balance it out!
|
|
|
Post by zarono on Sept 18, 2016 19:15:11 GMT -5
Venaala can you point out any distinctly Finnish sounding names or words in REH's Conan stories? I'm just curious since you are a native speaker and that would be a strong point in favor of your views on REH's inspiration for the Hyperboreans.
|
|
fernando
Thief
I'm purist and proud! I hate insistent people! And I only give opinions when I'm ASKED!!
Posts: 141
|
Post by fernando on Sept 20, 2016 15:28:23 GMT -5
I think this is the most reasonable change. It still allows everyone their say, just on two separate threads. This thread was getting confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Von K on Sept 20, 2016 17:02:30 GMT -5
Thanks for the post Deuce!
Very clear points.
Sometimes individual posters can get out of hand, and a mod has to step in to keep things on-topic.
We're lucky to have a great moderator like you on the forum, who is willing to take so much personal time to explain things so clearly, keep threads organised and on-topic, and respond in such a fair, respectful and reasonable way.
You're a mainstay of the forum here, as you were of the old one. You and Strom (and Crom) were always very reasonable in dealing with such issues.
Not that I want to overlook Jason and Aggro - we're very lucky to have you guys too!
|
|
|
Post by bront on Sept 21, 2016 5:41:32 GMT -5
The last few posts have made me think about the nature of what one can and can not post in any given thread, and how the rules work.
The title of this thread 'Hyperborea and the Hyperboreans (according to REH)' is obviously a bit of a misnomer. It should have been 'Hyperborea is Russia' or something like that.
So, does the creator of a thread get to set the tone. If say I had an individual fancy that Brythunia was based on medieval Poland and created a thread titled 'Brythunia and the Brythunians (according to REH)' would that automatically allow me to exclude arguments that offered up another historical based nation and accompanying era as a template for said Hyborian nation as seems to be the case on this thread.
Personally I don't see much of a difference between Hyperborea as Finland or Hyperborea as Russia. If its strictly REH's words on the matter so be it, but if you decide to put in an individual opinion on what you think REH might have based a Hyborian nation on then let the other guy do the same.
|
|
|
Post by deuce on Sept 21, 2016 9:04:41 GMT -5
The last few posts have made me think about the nature of what one can and can not post in any given thread, and how the rules work. The title of this thread 'Hyperborea and the Hyperboreans (according to REH)' is obviously a bit of a misnomer. It should have been 'Hyperborea is Russia' or something like that. That's an unbelievably cogent analysis of the situation, Bront. As always, you know how to speak truth to power. Looking back through the Hyperborea thread, there is basically nobody who says 'Hyperborea IS Russia'. I know I certainly don't think so. From what I can tell, most people simply think that it's most likely, if REH had a historical inspiration for Hyperborea, that the inspiration was medieval/Renaissance Russia. Nobody has said that one is the exact copy of the other. Sorry if you have a problem with looking at everything REH wrote to get a more complete picture of things, Bront. Some people have read more Howard than the Lancers. Some people haven't even read those. To a certain extent, yes, the Original Poster of the thread calls the shots on content. That's how it was on the Old Forum and that's how it is here. If someone created a "Just the REH Conan Stories" thread and someone kept talking about about 'Black Tears' or Conan the Indomitable, then the OP would be justified in contacting the moderators if the person didn't desist and continued spamming the thread. The spammer/derailer could always create their own thread, unless they were lazy or had an agenda. The problem on the Hyperborea thread was that, according to Howard's own opinions that we have, he could not have been basing/inspired by the Finns when he created the Hyperboreans. Thus, those posts were off-topic. It's that simple. Since, according to Howard's opinions and examples, the "REH was inspired by Russia" hypothesis hasn't been shown to utterly contradict Howard, then it stays, just as would any other hypothesis that didn't contradict Howard. If you have such evidence, then bring it over on the Hyperborea thread. I and others would be glad to discuss it. Which reminds me that your reply above (and other replies) to my notification post belong here, on the Venaala thread, as I said in that post. In addition, you brought up Finland in connection to Hyperborea. Two strikes. Thanks for contributing to Venaala's thread!
|
|
|
Post by deuce on Sept 21, 2016 10:01:09 GMT -5
== DEUCE said = Venaala sees things differently, which is totally her right. An agreement has been reached. All future comments about Finland and Hyperborea will be directed to the "Armies of the Hyborian Age" thread here: swordsofreh.proboards.com/thread/42/armies-hyborian-age-morgan-holmesDespite the title, Venaala powerfully shifted that thread to a "Finnoborean" stance on just the third post, making it a vibrant venue for thoughts and feelings about Finland and Hyperborea. In all honesty, Venaala created the first "Hyperborean" thread on the forum right there. Everyone wanting to join in the fun and excitement is encouraged to frequent that noteworthy thread. To get things jump-started, several of Venaala's most powerful and fact-filled posts have already been moved over. Discussions are still underway as to whether any more posts from this thread will be moved. Let no one doubt that criticism of the "REH used medieval Russia as a general basis for Hyperborea" is fully encouraged on this thread. ==== ==== >> Hey Deuce, you should edit the contents of your post which i quoted above into your First post on this big topic. so new members are fully aware of the posting restrictions, from the beginning. ==== >> OK. that's fine and clear. [ most of us veteran fans got used to strictly posting in the 'correct /requested' threads on the great old closed forum. that strict system works well, and makes reading different subjects much easier for members.] - i look forward to all future comments and ideas in each thread. As do I, Buxie! Just wanted to let you know that, as stated plainly in my "notification post" on the Hyperborea thread, all replies to that post (and mentions of Finland in connection to Hyperborea) go on this thread. Sorry for any inconvenience and I appreciate the enthusiasm.
|
|