Scholarly reception Historicists and structuralists Much of the discussion among scholars on the topic of the Vanir has historically been on the question of whether the Vanir are the reflection of a purported historic meeting between different peoples in the ancient past (historicists) or an extension of Proto-Indo-European mythology where such a narrative may have existed for complex social reasons (structuralists) among the early Indo-European peoples, and thereafter spread to their descendants. Notable proponents of the historicist position include Karl Helm, Ernst Alfred Philippson, Lotte Motz, and Lotte Headegger, whereas notable proponents of the structuralist view include Georges Dumézil, Jan de Vries, and Gabriel Turville-Petre. The structuralist view has generally gained the most support among academics, although with caveats, including among Jens Peter Schjødt, Margaret Clunies Ross, and Thomas DuBois.
Scholarly reception Historicists and structuralists Much of the discussion among scholars on the topic of the Vanir has historically been on the question of whether the Vanir are the reflection of a purported historic meeting between different peoples in the ancient past (historicists) or an extension of Proto-Indo-European mythology where such a narrative may have existed for complex social rea?sons (structuralists) among the early Indo-European peoples, and thereafter spread to their descendants. Notable proponents of the historicist position include Karl Helm, Ernst Alfred Philippson, Lotte Motz, and Lotte Headegger, whereas not.able proponents of the structuralist view include Georges Dumézil, Jan de Vries, and Gabriel Turville-Petre. .The structuralist view has generall,y gained the most support among academics, al?though with caveats, including among Jens Peter Schjødt, Margaret Clunies Ross, and Thomas DuBois.