[gothic-l] Re: Goths, Eruli in the East

[einarbirg]

--- In gothic-l at y..., "einarbirg" <einarbirg at y...> wrote:
> --- In gothic-l at y..., "faltin2001" <dirk at s...> wrote:
> > --- In gothic-l at y..., "einarbirg" <einarbirg at y...> wrote:
> > > --- In gothic-l at y..., "faltin2001" <dirk at s...> wrote:
> > > > --- In gothic-l at y..., "Bertil Haggman" <mvk575b at t...> wrote:
> > > > > 

 Hæ.  Talking about acceptance of "old" ideas then lets look at what 
Lee M. Hollander has to say.                                          
The man who translated Barðis book to English was Dr. Lee M. 
Hollander, professor of Germanic languages at the University of Texas 
and was said to be an authority in the field of Old Norse literature.
He translated the book in 1967 and obviously did not find Barðis 
ideas neither bizarre not outdated.                                   
It is actually obvious from what he says that he respects Barði a lot.
Calling him a great scholar even.

>From indroduction,quote; It was in the summer of 1939 at the annual 
Congress of Scandinavists in Copenhagen that the recently appointed 
Keeper of the National Archives of Iceland, Barthi Guthmundsson, 
startled his learned colleagues with a paper on the nationality of 
the Icelanders. In it he sought to prove with novel arguments that, 
contrary to the generally held belief, important elements among the 
settlers were not of West Scandinavian, i.e. Norwegian, but of East 
Scandinavian, Danish, and ultimately Herulian origin. 

Einar; It is obvious that the aim of Lee´s translation is to promote 
Barði´s ideas. It can savely be said that Dr. Lee did accept Barði´s 
ideas though I am not saying that he would have accepted everything.

>From indroduction, quote;......together with the difficaulty, even 
for Scandinavians, of Modern Icelandic no doubt accounts for the 
pioneering labors of this great scholar remaining practically 
unknown, let alone being accepted. The translation here offered aims 
to remedy the situation.                                              

Einar; And this English translation is so little known that even 
Icelandic scholars seem to be unaware of it.
So one of the foremost authority in the 2oth century in the field of 
Old Norse literature calles Barði a great scholar and is promoting 
his writings by translating them from Icelandic to English.
Obviously this great and openminded scholar did not find Barðis 
writings bizarre nor outdated. But finds Barði a great scholar.

About Barðis general ideas then they are discussed in letter no. 4038 
on Germanic-L.

Scholar Gísli Sigurðsson does mention Barðis ideas in his book; 
Gaelic Influence in Iceland, University of Iceland press 2000.       
He does mention Barðis reaserch into skaldship and quotes part of his 
reaserch in a favorable way. He even does mention Barðis Heruli 
theories without comments.
This reasercher does obviously not find Barðis ideas bizarre nor 
outdated. 

In the book Kuml og Haugfé (Pagan burials and grave findings) 
published 1999 or 2000 then the author( archaeologist) uses Barði´s 
theories to explain artifacts findings of East Scandinavian origin. 
He discusses Barði theories in a very favorable manner but does not 
mention the Heruli theories.
But it must be considered the job of archaeologists to dig up old 
things and then the writings of "old" authors too.
But obviously this author did not find Barðis ideas bizarre nor 
outdated.
And to make it clear then Icelandic burial practices did not derive 
from West or Southwest Norway. They have most similarities to 
Scandinavian burial practices in the British Isles.

Archaeologist Orri Vésteinsson says in Saga Book(1997) in his 
article; Patterns of settlement in Iceland: A study in prehistory.

Quote; For quite some time it also seemed reasonable to pinpoint a 
specific region in Scandinavia as the place of origin of the 
Icelandic settlers. West and Southwest Norway has always been the 
favorite, but this is based more on the Book of Settlement than any 
sound archaeological evidence............
In general it is safe to say that most Icelandic scholars shy away 
from speculations concerning the precise origin of the settlers of 
Iceland.                                                              

Einar;It is just like this is directly being taken out of Barðis book 
actually. Shy away. Yes,indeed. Because they all know, even the 
nationalistic ones that the old theories do not hold water. And they 
all know Barðis theories and if accepting his theories that would 
crush a lot of academic papers. It would turn their world upside 
down. And surely they do not like the Heruli idea. And then their 
pride has to be taken into consideration.

Actually one of the most prominent genetic scientists in Iceland, 
Agnar Helgason mentions Barði´s ideas in a book published by 
academics in Iceland in 1997.(Við og hinir-University of Iceland 1997)
He does not seem to find Barði´s ideas bizarre not outdated.
He is discussing the origin of the Icelanders.

He quotes there professor Sveinbjörn Rafnsson that says that the Book 
of Settlement is a political spin(fabrication) written to justify at 
that day distribution of land(land ownership) and consolidate the 
power of the ruling class.                                        

Agnar talkes about unsuspected genetic results concerning the origin 
of the Icelanders. He talks about what has been happening in this 
field in general and the results.                                     
On the first page he discusses Barði´s Heruli theories. He calls his 
hypothesis about the Heruli; frekar langsótta kenningu. That is; a 
rather farfetched theory. I am not sure this word farfetched is the 
most accurate translation. 
And he says; rather.
Maybe he is echoing some "consensus" here among Icelandic scholars. 
But I can not be sure of course. But he mentions Barði´s theory for a 
special purpose. As you soon can see.
And he finds the theory farfetched on historical grounds not by the 
measurements of genetic sciences.

In his conclusions about the origin of the Icelanders Agnar 
says;        
Genetic results in Iceland can be explained mainly in three ways;
1. Part of the original settlers could have had their ancestry in 
groups of people with different genetic combinations than 
Scandinavians and Celts. Enn sú skýring virðist ekki sennileg which 
means; But that explanation does not seem to be likely.

Einar; He mentions this hypothesis as his first but do not find it 
very likely(on historical grounds)Because he does express himself in 
such a way it is obvious that he considers this hypothesis as a 
possibility to explain genetic results.

2. Founder effect.Does find that theory rather unlikely(frekar 
ólíkleg).That is being less important than no 1. and 3. 

3. Genetic drift. Í þriðja lagi mætti líta svo á, og sú skýring 
virðist mest sannfærandi.... As a third possibility we could look at 
and find that explanation to be seemingly the most convincing.

Einar; Virðist mest is; seemingly the most.
So he hesitantly says that this third explanation is seemingly the 
most convincing. That is seemingly. Seems to be meaning because of 
historical grounds because he knows perfectly well that not all 
differences can be explained away with genetic drift. Most likely he 
is saying that these three possibilities are all valid as a 
explanation but none of them excludes the other.                      

He is really saying that for explaining the genetic results so far
(and reaserch in physical anthropology,blood grouping A-B-AB-O and 
protein,amino acids which he discusses too)then there are mainly 
three explanations. And one of the explanations is that part of the 
settlers could trace their ancestry outside of Scand. or British 
Isles.
NB He clearly states that genetic results can be explained mainly in 
three ways.  He is saying that these three explanations are all valid.

And if he would promote the first explanation then that could cause a 
violent reaction from some Icelandic scholars.Therefore he is so very 
careful. And he does not talk about the Heruli in the conclusions.. 
But it is obvious that he  is making reference to Barði´s ideas. If 
it is possible that some part of the first settlers could trace their 
ancestry outside of Scandinavia and the British Isles then it is 
obvious that Barði´s Heruli theories spring to his mind.              
And he is perfectly aware that genetic drift involved is not so much 
as to totally neutralize hypothesis no 1.
Further genetic evidence published in the American Journal of Human 
Genetics 2000 and 2001 has further supported hypothesis no. 1.

It is simply so that it seems to be that a part of the original 
settlers in Iceland could trace their ancestry to areas outside of 
Scandinavia and the British Isles. 
Like it or not. The easiest explanation for that is that Barði was 
right. Part of the descendants of Heruli chieftainly families who 
were then these East Scandinavian chieftainly families migrated 
eventually to Iceland. Accepting this would solve all the "unsolved 
mysteries/problems" Icelandic scholars in this field have 
been "trying" to solve.

The hypothesis that explains most problems/issues in a satisfactory 
manner should be adopted.
They who do not like that theory simply have to come up with better 
ones. Or swallow their pride.

Forget the old theory about Icelanders being native Norwegian 
emigrants from Southwest and Western Norway. Nobody beliefs this 
anymore.

And NB, he says; ættaður frá, that is trace their ancestry to. He 
does not say that this group(having different genetic makeup) were 
themselves from outside of Scandinavia or the British Isles but says 
that they can TRACE THEIR ANCESTRY  to groups of people that do not 
have their origin in Scand. nor the British Isles.
Why does he say it in such a way? He is saying without saying it 
directly that Barði could be right.
That is that genetic results so far do support Barði´s theories.

NB This has been a hotly debated issue because nobody beliefs the old 
theories any longer. In a reaserch paper published in the American 
Journal of Human Genetics it says(66:999-1016,2000- mtDNA and the 
origin of the Icelanders.....)

Quote;The ancestry of the settlers is more controversial........
To date the issue of the origins of the Icelanders remains 
unresolved.........                                                   
Besides the controversy surrounding the ancestry of the 
Icelanders.........                                                   

Einar;So in year 2000 the issue remains unresolved and it is a 
controversial issue.                                                  
And all genetic reaserch so far can be seen as supportive of Barðis 
ideas. But going against the old theories.
And that is hard to swallow for many scholars.
Swallowing ones pride and admitting not being right is very,very 
difficult for many people.

Bless,bless Einar.





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/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/