[HoneyBadger]

The central issue, I feel, is that we *are* dealing with mystification/romantification (such is the nature of the game)-but that we're mainly dealing with mystic elements that those cultures have imparted upon themselves, in some fashion. The exception may be India's portrayal, which is, as mentioned, based on Rudyard Kipling's 'The Jungle Book'. Thus, it is a myth, within a myth, within another myth, and much removed from the original material. *But*, not so far removed that it is a mockery. Kipling was stationed in Colonial India, and did his best to tell a story about India-that-was, albeit through European eyes. It's fantasy, but it's responsible fantasy, again-based atleast in part on actual beliefs (the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, for example). So, it's still myth, just a more modern myth than, say, the Norse sagas-which were, once again, transformed into stories by (probably) Snorri Snurluson, which might not reflect precisely the nature of the original material. It's just the best we have.

Snori may be a little closer to the original material, but Rudyard has every bit the right to tell a story as Snori does, and the story told is every bit as valid, and intriguing.