Shaman belt 1
back to essays | links |litteratur |sitemap | home |
Swedish TV published in January 2001 two programmes about primitive shaman
tribes in Scandinavia so to speak. The Sames in Lapland have always
been seen as primitive and the scientists ask from where they came.
Obviously there is a problem how they could get mixed with the
One of the Samic scientists put it on the edge when saying, "They
always ask from where the Sames came, but never about the origin of
the Norse and Swedish." I suggest that the brave where stored under
the ice glaciers and popped up when they melted. Some Norse travel
agency advertises that they have melted the Norse for long by sending
In the other programme they published a map showing the "Arctic
Shaman Belt" around the globe above the 50 degrees of latitude. For
some reason they excluded Denmark, Norway and Sweden from that but on
the other hand they included both North and South America. They
accompanied the "shaman theory" by showing pictures of Uralic and
Finnish people from 19th century. They look odd of course in 21st
century ... surely they where all shamans.
Unfortunately the new DNA-analysis cannot prove the real origin of
these shamans neither prove the origin of the Finnish and Samic
language. I understand it would be difficult for them to se from the
DNA markers from where I came since I speak five language and is half
Russian I think.
Some years ago I heard that the Swedish government
pay scientists to search for the criminal gene. I suggest that they
search for the capitalist gene since there is not much difference in
the markers, I suppose. DNA cannot prove things that come with
This is all about enough time perspective and about heritage and
environment. We do not inherit language and culture. That we get by
being born into a culture or grow up in a culture. In Denmark I am
the pure Dane, in Sweden the Swede and in Finland almost a Finn. The
culture is produced in a certain environment. The Sames have about 30
words for snow that is of no use in the Egyptian environment. The
environment shapes language and mankind.
Agriculture and urban culture has grown by influence from south. With
that came the special language. When it came little by little most of
it assimilated to existing culture. But there are "pockets" keeping
their own old language but adapting culture. Examples are Basques,
Finns, Sames and the Icelanders while Welsh and Irish are gradually
being of the right kind.
I write "the right kind" since all my life I have heard that Finns,
Sames, Slaves, Hungarians, Celts and Irish and so on are not the
right kind. I only say that if science still use pseudo qualities it
is not science.
It is the primitive tribe mentality that people want to be special
and exclude people they do not understand. I just wonder how the
Swedes can forget that Finland was one third of Sweden for around 600
years, but still they never learnt that Finns are humans. The same it
is with the Sames in North. The Icelanders are example of a tribe
wanting to keep their identity and then they become isolates.
I cannot see that serious scientist should stick to such theories.
They should ask what was the situation in Europe above the Alps
during Ice Age. The population was smaller and seemingly they
expanded in the pace of melting glaciers. Later the culture was
influenced by agriculture, but many parts of the wilderness in North
got enough for their living from nature and later from cattle. Here
on Dal it was cattle-land until middle of 19th century.
However the entire Scandinavia including Finland adapted early the
astro-myths of the south since it gave a good view of nature and a
programme for the seasons. Those growing corns could not use any kind
of so-called shamanism. Another thing is that southern Scandinavia
and Finland show same kind of culture five to six thousand years ago.
That cannot be measured by DNA or seen in ever changing language. We
get the indications from real finds. Science should stick to real
evidence as long as possible.
This is also a global question since those scientist include America and we have all those Third World Cultures and Australia Western scientific snobbism treat with cultural imperialism. Archaeology has concentrated too much on stony cultures and in reality few archaeologists see the roots to that. That lies in rural culture.
They tell civilisation began around 3000 BC in Sumer and Egypt and do not know about the Indus culture that developed at the same time. They are not interested in the fact that the early archaeology dug to the level of 5000 BC in Sumerian Eridu. If we want to really understand ancient ideas we have to know about the rural time and from where they got the ideas to "civilisation".
Back to list