[gothic-l] Re: Germanic Migrations

[dirk at SMRA.CO.UK]

Bertil,

First, I am not a linguist, which invalidates most of your statement 
below. Second, historians by definition - and no self-respecting 
historian would object - cannot contribute a lot to what are 
essentially pre-historic times in our geographic area of interest. 
What kind of material (original resources) can a historian study if 
there are no historical resources? Linguists and archaeologists do 
not need written sources for their research so they must uncover the 
material and the interpretations. I am sure you will not object to 
this, as we are otherwise enter a level that is too low to merit 
dicussion on this list.

Dirk





--- In gothic-l at egroups.com, Bertil Häggman <mvk575b at t...> wrote:
> Dirk,
> 
> Am sorry to read your description of the historians role,
> but as you are probably a linguist yourself, I can understand
> that you feel that your discipline should be held forward.
> I notice with regret that you don't answer my question of 
> how much of the theories you present have ended up
> in history books, mainly in Germany, as these writings
> seem to point toward a Germanic original home in Germany.
> But you limit yourself to stating that these theories have
> found their way into literature (?).
> 
> The linguistic articles you have named certainly merits
> study but they must be taken for what they are, theories
> based on thoughts about an era where no written material
> exists. 
> 
> Germanically
> 
> Bertil
> 
> > there is no ranking of disciplines. History uses written 
documents as 
> > source of study. If there are no written documents, historians 
cannot 
> > contribute very much. In the time frame and area we are speaking
> > about there are practically no written sources that means that 
> > archaeologists and linguists must uncover the evidence. That does 
not 
> > mean that a historian cannot attempt an interpretation on the 
basis
> > of later written documents, if the written sources are not too 
far 
> > removed in time. By the nature of things, a historian cannot 
research 
> > the culture of Scandinavia in say 1000 BC, there is simply nothing
> > for him/her to study. Thus it is the disciplines that can work 
with 
> > the primary evidence which should foreward theories on such an 
issue. 
> > The people cited here are at the centre of this research. The 
material
> > has certainly found its way into the literature, as the evidence 
> > itself constitutes literature. Also, a new idea (that may be 
better 
> > than the old literature) is by definition not represented in the 
old 
> > literature. This does not discount the value of the idea. If it 
is 
> > better the single idea is worth more than the old literature. The 
only 
> > way to see whether the new ideas are better is to engage with the 
> > evidence and provide counter evidence.
> > 
> > Dirk
> > 
> > --- In gothic-l at egroups.com, Bertil Häggman <mvk575b at t...> wrote:
> > > Dirk,
> > > 
> > > In my opinion the three categories are
> > > 
> > > 1) historian
> > > 2) archaelogist
> > > 3) linguist
> > > 
> > > Of course linguists have their importance and
> > > as a matter of fact their methods often can learn
> > > historians and archaeologists one or two things.
> > > The linguistic material you present are of course
> > > interesting but I think you are drawing to wide
> > > conclusions from them. To be of real value
> > > they have to be combined with the views of
> > > historians and archaelogists. It would be interesting
> > > to know if any of the material you are introducing
> > > has found its way into history books in England
> > > and Germany. I can assure you that it hasn't in Sweden.
> > > You may well call me speculator if you want, I still
> > > think historic research counts, and counts importantly.
> > > 
> > > Germanically
> > > 
> > > Bertil
> > > 
> > > > linguist are often in the happy situation of working with 
'the 
> > real 
> > > > thing'. As you know, names, i.e. place names are the 
graveyards
> > of 
> > > > languages and linguists can be the archaeologists of 
languages. 
> > For  
> > > > scientists such as the mentioned persons who have all 
presented 
> > major 
> > > > , recent contributions to the field by presenting real 
evidence, 
> > being 
> > > > called 'speculators' is quite insulting to them. I think it 
would 
> > be 
> > > > better to engage with the evidence and provide counter 
evidence 
> > > > otherwise you could run danger of being called a speculator 
> > yourself.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a 
blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.
> > Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html
> > 
> >


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/3/_/3398/_/973370825/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.
Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html