[gothic-l] Re: Goths, Eruli in the East
faltin2001
dirk at SMRA.CO.UK
Fri Jan 11 15:58:12 UTC 2002
Hi Einar,
thanks for posting this again. I have nothing against Barthi's
theories about East Scandinavian influence on Iceland and this
question is not even remotely relevant for this list. But I still
find a theory arguing that a part of the first settlers in Iceland
were Heruls extremely weird and not believable no matter how many
people you can cite who thing the opposite.
cheers,
Dirk
--- In gothic-l at y..., "einarbirg" <einarbirg at y...> 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..., "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outdated.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 ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vf6MrB/4m7CAA/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