[gothic-l] Re: Lukman

[trbrandt at POST9.TELE.DK]

Keth, Dirk, Ingemar and Tore!

You have been very eager to get Lukman's dissertation. As a
temporary 
compensation FX presented the reference to a letter on ANSAXNET in 
which we can read that the consequences of Lukman's theory for 50 
years "never penetrated to the outside of The University" of 
Copenhagen. As a tax-payer I hope there is a very simple explanation 
for that. 

I have read Lukmans books and also Lars Hemmingsens PhD-dissertation 
(By word of mouth, 1996, Center for Folkloristik) elaborating on 
Lukman's ideas. According to these theories legends from the
Black 
Sea and the Danube regions were told in Northern Germany and 
Scandinavia – as example by soldiers, troubadures, tradesmen, 
pilgrims or crusaders. Since then these legends were used as 
Scandinavian legends and nearly all the first kings in Gesta Danorum 
of Saxo and the Sagaes of Snorri should therefore originate from 
Herulian, Hunnic and Gothic legends without any connection to the 
Danish/Scandinavian history. Accordingly the Danish history of the 
Migration Period should be totally unknown. The successors of Lukman 
have "proved" this by comparing names, contents and
structures in 
Norse and Central European legends.

As far as I can see their theories have three weaknesses:

1. The legends could as well be brought to Scandinavia by a migration 
people as the history of a royal family – not of a territory.
This 
could explain why the legends had been so well protected in 
Scandinavia (It was a problem for Lukman's successors, that 
these "foreign" legends were better preserved than local
Scandinavian 
stories - being in this case unknown. They tried to explain this 
claiming the legends were transferred much later (even around 1200), 
but they failed - in my opinion - as some of the kings in their 
examples (Roar and Rolf) were called Danes already in Widsith (700AD) 
and in Beowulf describing helmets with boar crests later found in 
graves in Mercia and Vendel (Sweden) from around 600AD).
 
2. Similarity in names does not prove – and used alone does not
even 
indicate - the persons were identical. They might as well be members 
of the same family, kingdom or religious group or not common members 
at all. (If you look at the example from ANSAXNET it appear as a 
comparison of two identical rows of names giving a high probability. 
The row from Dacia isn't a real historical list. It is a mixture
of 
kings and viceroys from different nationalities (in some way 
connected to Dacia) combined in order to be compared with Cronicon 
Lethrense, but the kings of that list (not all being kings in the 
version I know) do not all appear in order and position as mentioned 
in the above posting. This results in a much lower probability. By 
the way one of the most important elements supporting Lukmans theory 
is missing in the E-mail - Frode ~ Theodoric, who was never king of 
Dacia.)
   
3. Good narrators use some universal structures in their tellings if 
they want people to listen - boring narratives do not survive. The 
tools for comparison which I have seen used on these legends in the 
dissertations did not separate the legends in a convincing way - in 
my opinion - but I am far from being a specialist in folklore.

-----

I am sure Lukman's (and Curt Weibull's) idea about some Norse
and 
German legends and kings being originally Eastgermanic is basically 
correct, but he/they went too far in their conclusions. Some Norse 
legends are really legends about Ermaneric, Attila, Roduulf and 
Theodoric, but when a cronicler like Saxo 700 years later combined 
the legends in his melting pot (the croniclers connected to the 
Danish Court and Church around 1200 had their motives to find a long 
and powerful Danish history), some of his kings became a mixture of 
Eastgermanic and Danish kings wearing similar names. These 
similarities in names were often seen in Germanic tribes - like in 
the royal families to day. Therefore the presence of Eastgermanic 
elements in Scandinavian legends do not prove that the kings had 
nothing to do with Scandinavia (as claimed in ANSAXNET) or that the 
legends had no historical value at all. We can't be sure.

Personally I find the Heruls the most obvious possibility explaining 
how these legends ended up in Scandinavia. As discussed elsewhere 
Procopius told us their kings settled in Scandinavia, and we know 
this happened after they had supported or been ruled or subdued by 
the above keyfigures. You may find other possibilities - or 
Lukman/Lars may theoretically be right in all their claims. 

A short description and critique of this kind covering also his 
successors will never give a fair impression of Lukman's work,
but 
the letter from ANSAXNET should not stand alone. I hope you will get 
his book and make your own opinion.

Regards
Troels



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/1/_/3398/_/981387176/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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