When there are a lot of data points pointing one way (to Krarsht being chaotic), and apparently just one (runic association) pointing the other, and that one data point has been later revised, it probably points to that one data point being an error, by plain old Occams razor.
This whole argument seems to rest on Lords of Terrors runic attribution, Gods of Gloranthas runic atttribution, being discarded in favour of Cults of Terror, even though those other sources are later and any major changes presumably being quite deliberate. And its not simply assuming that CoT is definitive here - its assuming that in the runic attributions CoT was subtly indicating that Krarsht wasn't really chaotic, while simultaneously describing the cult as chaotic in the text, deliberately misleading the reader.
Now, I don't expect to argue Peter into admitting this might be a mistake. But I think its probably time to say that this theory i likely to have one single adherent, admit that Peter GWV, and move one. Its a novel theory, and has some interesting implications, but as its stands very hard to support. But it needs more to support it, rather than just dogmatic defense of a single data point.
> The same source which describes Dendara as an Earth Goddess
> (Runes: Light and Earth)?
Of course, there is an explanation for that - which is that Greg did a lot of work on Solar mythology after the publication of GoG, and Dendara was explicitly revised. There is no such explanation for Krarsht.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail