[gothic-l] Re: Names of Heruls-Goffart-J.Svennung.
Einar Birgisson
einarbirg at YAHOO.COM
Fri Nov 30 16:08:39 UTC 2001
--- 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..., "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,
>
> 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.
Einar; Hæ Dirk. Thanks for your response.
Explaining the shortcomings of his approach in detail would mean a
very close study of his works. Not just the book; Narrators of
Barbarian History.
And I suspect it to be a full time job for many days or probably a
week or two.. And simply. I do not have time or energy for that.
And honestly, I do not think that such a discussion would change my
mind,your mind nor the mind of any other listmember.
But such a never ending dialogue, would make everybody tired.
Anyway, the above mentioned book is the only book by Goffart,who is
available at the library.
My letter from yesterday on Gothic-L and my letters no.3527 and 3528
on the Germanic-L should be able to clarify why I judge that his
approach has many shortcomings.
>
> 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.
Einar; I made it very clear in my letters no 3527 and 3528(Germanic-
L)that; "and my comments are just about what he says about Jordanes
and Procopius in the book; The Narrators of Barbarian History.
Chapter I and II and some other parts, and then his conclusions."
And I said; "And I am just talking about the above mentioned chapters
and in that particular book. Not his writings as a whole. Nothing
like that" (above quoting from letter no. 3528).
So I stated very clearly on what I based my conclusion and what
subject I was discussing.
The same goes for my letter yesterday. I just thought I would not
have to repeat myself.
Going into details, then I can point out what I said in letter no 3528
In that letter(quote,page 93), I quoted Goffart, and then asked you
if Goffart had any psychic abilities?
Because Goffart seems to have no problems with knowing what the Goths
knew and knew not.!
And he seems to even know what every single individual knew or knew
not.! That is obvious on the context. Because he says;"
Quote ,page 93; The broken bridge,symbolizing collective
amnesia,helped to explain why no Goth or anyone else had ever heard
of the Scandzan homeland before.
So Goffart do know what every individual Goth knew. And not just
that;He knows what everybody else knew too.!!
And he said; "ever heard of" . These statements made me think that
Goffart must have some psychic abilities.
And his statement about the "collective amnesia" is incredible too.
Well, I do not think that Goffart has any such abilities. Therefore I
said in my letter yesterday,that he should have counted from one to
ten, before starting writing. Before coming up with all kinds of
speculations. And a little bit funny speculations.
Nobody can take his above mentioned statements seriously.
I quote from page 95 (in the above mentioned letter). There Goffart
starts talking about "silly tales in circulation-such as the Herules
migrating from the Danube to Thule..."
These are one of his speculations based on his privat opinion and
nothing else.
Nobody can take statements like that seriously.
I mentioned too in this above mentioned letter that " Goffarts
aggressive attitude shines through from the first page".
And that is obvious to everybody.
Goffart´s "analysis" is by no means neutral nor balanced. You do not
have to read much to discover that.
But Goffart has a vivid imagination. Unfortunately such things can
not be any basis in historical reaserch.
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.
Einar; I understand they dislike his writings. The shortcomings of
his approach is obvious and then his analysis and conclusions are not
trustworthy.
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.
Einar; But I suspect he did not do that in a neutral or balanced
manner. And as I said yesterday in my letter then "Goffart has no
training in analyzing human behavior,neither individuals nor
behavioral patterns of groups".
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.
Einar; I would like to,but I do not have access to the book.
>
> 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.
Einar; I suspect that many of my conclusions would be accepted by
many(both laymen and professionals). At least I think so.
And talking about biased conclusions, then that is a description that
fits well for Goffart´s conclusions on the writings of Jordanes and
Procopius.
And I suspect that many scholars would agree with me 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.
Einar; I find this information very interesting. I went to the
library and they have many books by author
J.Svennung.
I do not think you have mentioned from what book of him, you have the
above mentioned information??
Unfortunately all those books are in German. And reading German is
hard for me.
I picked out a book called; Jordanes und Scandia.
Kritisch-exegetische studien.
Well,this seems to be a very interesting book,loaded with info.
Fortunately, there was a English Summary(just one page).
I want to quote from that summary.
Quote; Jordanes´Getica consists chiefly of a summary of a work by
Cassiodorus. The primary aim of our reaserch is to discover the
reliability of Jordanes´ethnographical and geographical data on
Scandinavia(Scandia) in the sixth century. We find that his data are
very trustworthy and valuable.
Einar; Is this not opposite to what Goffart is claiming?
Later he says. Quote; (Out of context)........21.Dani-Danes, 22.
Heruli-Heruls. The last two peoples had emigrated from Scandia.
Later he says. Quote; Many scholars hold that migrations cannot be
proved by archaeological excavations. If this is true then I feel
that archaeology cannot prove that migration did NOT take place, and
that written sources(in this case Jordanes) increase in importance.
The Gothic migration narrative is genuine folk tradition, not
constructed on the basis of Gog-Magog in the Old Testament.
Einar; But it would be kind of you to inform me in what book
J.Svennung mentions Procopiu´s sources. You say; "Procopius, I think
used what Svennung called ´source 2´"....
> 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.
Einar; I must agree with you here. And very much so.
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.
Einar; And therefore a neutral and balanced approach is needed.
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.
> Einar; I believe you here.
> I think we should end the discussion here.
Einar; I agree with you 100%
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.
Einar; Therefore we need a detailed,neutral and balanced analysis.
A teamwork by specialists from many fields are the best. As I
mentioned in my letter yesterday. (But in a different context.But you
know what I mean here)
>
> 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.
Einar; That is interesting. I can not comment on that because I do
not have any knowledge of that subject. But maybe reaserch aimed at
finding out,has not really be done?
> > 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.
Einar; I do not have any knowledge of that particular subject. So I
can not really comment on this.
But it is maybe dubious to bring Wolfram´s statement about a strong
tribal army(and his guess about the numbers of men in such a army)
into the discussion in such a way? I mean using his statement as some
argument in this particular case?
Troels mentioned in his letter no. 5125 yesterday the very specific
information in Book VI, xv, 6-15.
I am not trying to cause any trouble for you here. I am just curious.
But why are you so sure he copied that information from somebody
else?
Are there any descriptions from ancient literature you know of that
can support your statement. And that literature must of course be
from the period that Procopius lived in or from earlier periods.
And then it must be shown that he probably had access to that
information.
If such written descriptions do exist, have they been analysed
properly and compared with Procopius writings about that subject.??
And at last then I want to say that I respect your opinion even if I
do not have the same opinion.
And I do respect your knowledge and enjoy your contributions.
But I honestly think that we should stop discussing Procopius for a
while.
But I would be happy having a comment from you on this letter.
What is needed is good and solid archaeological reaserch and
hopefully some DNA reaserch to cast some new light on this debate.
And remember. I am criticizing Goffart in this letter, not you.
And he might very well be a very good and competent Historian. But
that does not make him a specialist in analyzing human behavior or
behavioral patterns of people(individuals or groups).
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/QzLWzD/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