[gothic-l] Re: Names of Heruls
dirk at SMRA.CO.UK
dirk at SMRA.CO.UK
Fri Nov 30 10:40:16 UTC 2001
--- In gothic-l at y..., "Einar Birgisson" <einarbirg at y...> wrote:
> --- In gothic-l at y..., dirk at s... wrote:
> > --- In gothic-l at y..., "Einar Birgisson" <einarbirg at y...> wrote:
> > > --- In gothic-l at y..., dirk at s... wrote:
> > > > --- In gothic-l at y..., "Einar Birgisson" <einarbirg at y...>
wrote:
> > > > > --- In gothic-l at y..., dirk at s... wrote:
> > > > > > --- In gothic-l at y..., "Einar Birgisson" <einarbirg at y...>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > --- In gothic-l at y..., dirk at s... wrote:
> > > > > > > > --- In gothic-l at y..., Tore Gannholm
> <tore.gannholm at s...>
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > Hi Einar,
> >
> > is it now science by majortiy vote? A majority once thought that
> the
> > earth was a disc ... you know the rest....
> >
> Einar; Hæ, Dirk. I understand your point here and agree with
> you. The opinion of a majority or a consensus reached by a majority
> does not have to reflect the truth or be the correct analysis of a
> particular subject.
> >
> > > If you are here(above) talking about the analysis made by Walter
> > > Goffart in Narrators of Barbarian History(I hope the book´s name
> is
> > > right here) then I did not find his approach trustworthy and it
> was
> > > very much lacking in depth.And his approach was not made in a
> > neutral
> > > manner. Far away from
> > >
> that.
> > > I have discussed that opinion of mine in a special letter. The
> name
> > > of the letter was: Walter Goffart(as far as I remember).
> >
>
> > I remember your letter, it was not an analysis but polemics.
Sorry,
> > but I really don't think that you are in a league to discredit
> people
> > like Prof. Goffart.
>
> Einar; I do not think I was discrediting Goffart. But the
> shortcomings of his approach and his conclusions is obvious to
> everybody,both laymen like me and to
> professionals.
Hi Einar,
ok, please exlain in detail in what ways Goffart's approach has
shortcommings. Afterwards I will be glad to lay out the shortcomings
of the historians that you regard as sound.
>
> And his approach is neither balanced nor neutral. You do not have to
> be a professional to see that.
I disagree. Goffart has really no 'partriotic' stake in this at all.
Your 'narrator' historians often tend to belief a source if there is
no other information available. Goffart is much more critical in this
respect.
> I suspect it to be easy for professionals to tear his writings about
> Jordanes and Procopius to pieces.
> What I have been reading on the Gothic-L and the letters 3367,3374
> and 3381( Andreas Schwarcz) makes me even more sure that I was right
> in my analysis or if you like it more, polemics.
>
>
> Actually I find Goffarts approach more like some polemics than
> analysis. Not a trustworthy approach.
>
> I am just a layman and I know my limits, and I allow myself to do
> mistakes and try to learn from them. But Goffart as a Professor in
> History can not allow himself the same thing. He should be more
> careful and neutral in his analysis. He seems to do a lot of
> mistakes.
>
> Another thing is that there is one problem Historians are facing
when
> doing reaserch like Goffart has been doing on Jordanes and
Procopius.
> Goffart like many other Historians does not know his limits.
Actually
> what I was reading in; The Narrators of Barbarian History, was not
> about History.
> It seemed to me that Goffart was in a territory not known to him,
> though it seems to me that he had no doubts about what he was doing.
> A little bit of selvreflection is needed sometimes.
>
> Goffart seems to me a little bit selfconceit. And then he is very
> aggressive. And this is not a good mix if you want to analyze human
> behavior(like Goffart is trying to do)
>
> I am talking about here that Goffart has no training in analyzing
> human behavior,neither individuals nor behavioral patterns of
groups.
> And he does not seem to have any special insight into such behavior
> either.
> His reaserch should have been a teamwork of
> Historians,Psychoanalysts,Social anthropologists and other
> specialists in analyzing the behavioral patterns of humans,either
> individuals or groups.
> If Goffart would have consulted specialists in these fields,he would
> have done fewer mistakes.
> And he should have breathed deeply and counted from one to ten,
> before starting writing. Then too, he would have done fewer
> mistakes.
>
> I think Goffart is a good Historian but he is no
psychoanalyst,social
> anthropologist nor(to my knowledge) has any trainig in any field
> connected to the study of human behavior.
> And that fact is very much reflected in his approach and his
writings.
> (At least in what I was reading)
>
> The Narrators of Barbarian History(what I read in it) was not about
> History but Goffart trying to be something of a analyst of human
> behavior. That is analyzing the behavior of Jordanes and Procopius
> and speculating about their motives and
> intentions.
> And the results are not trustworthy.
>From your writing I gather that you read only a few bits and pieces
from one book by Goffart. Yet, you come up with all sorts of
conclusions. The problem is Goffart issued some harsh criticism agains
the 'narrator-school' of historians; rightly arguing that they often
engage in speculations, that they tell stories like Jordanes, without
clear analysius and seeking to push tribal histories back into
practically mythological times and questioning their methodoloy.
Therefore, most German historians tend to dislike Goffart. The German
'Stammeskundler' maintain that a tribe's history can and should be
pushed back into mythical times. That tribal memories extented over
many centuries and even millenia. Goffart criticised this view
sutbstantially. I challenge you to read the first chapter of
Goffart's book "Barbarians and Romans: the Techniques of
Accommodation". I am sure you will get a completely different view
point.
Finally, one of my former doctoral advisors and leading historian of
Russia (Prof. D.C. Lieven), wrote about Goffart that " one cannot but
admire the sharpness of his analysis.... doubtless, one of the
greatest historians alive." I tend to trust Prof. Lieven's assessment
more than your biased conclusions drawn from reading a few bits of one
book.
> He even stated once that HE KNEW what the Goths knew and knew not!
> In my previous letter on the Germ-L, I took a example of that.
> I found many incredible statements made by Goffart in that
particular
> book. As can be seen in my above mentioned letter.
>
> Apart from that then his approach is not very scientific. He seems
to
> have an "opinion" and then tries to build up a theory around that
> opinion. Strange approach in History reaserch.
>
> >
> > Einar, read for example J. Svennung on this
> > matter, he shows that at the time of Jordanes and Procopius two
> > independent sources were available in Constantinopel that reported
> > about the Fennae and Scerefennae, who are believed to be one and
> the
> > same Scandinavian tribe. Procopius, I think used what Svennung
> called
> > 'source 2'.
>
> > Einar; If I can find those writings I will take a look. But I
> guess that many members of the Gothic/Germ.-L and scholars know of
> this source. And even so they still claim that Procopius was right
> when descriping the travel of the Heruli.
> And, why are you so sure that Procopius copied that information from
> others.? What evidence is behind that statement? And who says so?
> It would be nice to have some answers here.
It has been shown by several authors, including Svennung and Hachmann,
that there were a number of historical and geographical sources
available to writers like Ablabius, Procopius and Jordanes where they
could and did extract geographical and historical information. I think
it was Svennung, who argued that this information was about 200 years
old when it was used by Procopius etc. Thus, Svennung showed for
example that the tribal names reported by Procopius were very much
'worn down' because they had passed from copy to copy over a long
period of time.
As you know their have been those historians in the past who said that
Procopius is completely reliable and those who argued that he is
completely untrustworthy. The best way lies in the middle. Some of his
reports have been proven to be unreliable, much of his reports are
distorted by his political views, and much of the information does
reflect real events. Fiddling out what is what is extremely difficult
and requires a grasp of all sources relevant to the issue that many
historians simply don't seem to have. Here lies the reason why many
historians accept reports by Procopius if there is no counter-source
or obvious implausibility around. In the past historians even went to
great length to make obscure events, reported by Procopius, fit into
the real history.
I think we should end the discussion here. I have laid out why I think
that there are problems with Procopius' report. These problems do not
arise because he was 'lying', as Troels implies, but simply because he
relied on hear-say stories that were circling in his environment. As
A. Cameron wrote, Procopius was not a talented writer and he was
strongly influenced by his political views. Also, he did not check
information for plausibility or reliablity. The result is a mish-mash
of good and bad information.
His report about the Heruls contains, in my view, a lot of indications
that cast doubt on it. That does not mean that it is untrue, it simply
means that we cannot take Procopius' word for it and will have to wait
for other evidence to corroborate his report. One such line of
evidence could be archaeology. However, from my reading,
archaeologists do not regard a mass-migration or even a significant
migration of Danube-Germans into Sweden as a viable theory.
cheers,
Dirk
>
>
> > Once again you should really get some back ground information
first
> > before you make allegations and engage in polemics aimed at
> silencing
> > others.
>
> Einar; First, then I am not trying to silence anybody. That is your
> misunderstanding. And I am not making any allegations.
> You seem to be making allegations as can be seen in one of your
> letters from
> yesterday.
> And Goffart makes a lot of allegations.
>
> And then second;silencing whom? If you are talking about silencing
> you, then I will say to that, that I enjoy your writings a lot. You
> have a lot of knowledge and I always enjoy the information you have
> to share.
>
> You came with a statement and as a response to your statement I
asked;
>
> This is very interesting. On what basis do you claim that the Heruli
> group moving to Scandinavia was only a couple of hundred people. At
> most 2000 in number. ??
>
> You have still not come up with any supporting evidence to support
> this statement of yours.
I have in fact. Just to repeat once again. Wolfram argued that a
strong tribal army consisted of about 3000 men. The Heruls had -in
Procopius' words- just suffered a devastating defeat. So they will
have been much decimated. Also, we know that many of the Heruls stayed
in the area, one group moved to the Varnians in 512AD, others are said
to have gone first to the Rugiland, but later merged with the Gepids.
Others are said to have joint the Langobards. All in all this does not
leave a vast number of people to move to Thule. Moreover, I am sure if
you take a mainstream account of Swedish history and archaeology you
will not find that the mass-migration of Heruls is mentioned in any
way.
cheers,
Dirk
>
> Bless,bless. Einar.
> >
> >
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
Refill any ink cartridge for less!
Includes black and color ink.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/f00vhB/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
More information about the Gothic-l
mailing list