Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Germanic Migrations

Expand Messages
  • Bertil Häggman
    Having been waiting for the latest book on these issues _The Role of Migration in the History of the Eurasian Steppe_(ed. A. Bell- Fialkoff), London:Macmilan,
    Message 1 of 31 , Nov 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Having been waiting for the latest book on these
      issues _The Role of Migration in the History
      of the Eurasian Steppe_(ed. A. Bell- Fialkoff),
      London:Macmilan, 2000) I am pleased to note
      that the editor is of a view of a southern
      Scandinavian origin:

      "Musset (a French scholar, my note) placed their Urheimat
      (the Germanic peoples, my note) in southern Scandinavia
      in the late Bronze Age, an area where no pre-
      Germanic linguistic substratum had been found
      (p. 4). From there some Germanic tribes spread
      along the Baltic coast, toward the Oder. Others
      followed the coast of the North Sea, toward the Weser.
      By 1000 BC, according to Musset, German habitat stretched
      from the Ems to central Pomerania (Demougeot dated
      their appearance in Pomerania much later, from 400 BC [
      Demougeot, 1969, 45]. If we follow Musset, by 800 BC
      Germans reached Westphalia in the West and Vistula
      in the East. And 300 years later they could be found on the
      lower Rhine, in Thuringia and Lower Sileasia (Musset, I, 4)."

      Lucien Musset, _Les invasions: les vagues germanique_, Paris:
      Presses universitaires de France, 1965.

      Emilienne Demougeot, _Le formation de L'Europe et les
      invasions barbares_, Paris: Editions Montaigne, 1969-1974.

      More later with a review of the book.

      Germanically

      Bertil
    • dirk@smra.co.uk
      Hi Philip, my uncle was historian and professor of history who taught historic methodology at university. If one of his students came to him to propose Phd
      Message 31 of 31 , Nov 6, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Philip,

        my uncle was historian and professor of history who taught historic
        methodology at university. If one of his students came to him to
        propose Phd research on a prehistoric era, lets say the Battle Axe
        People etc. he would refere him to the archaeological department. If a
        historian starts studying grave goods, he would no doubt need
        specialist archaeological knowledge. Numismatics, ie. the study of
        coins is an auxiliary dicipline of history. There are always
        multi-disciplinary approaches possible. Please remember this
        discussion started as Bertil suggested that research by linguists is
        of 'limited value' and that historians must take the first place in
        the study of what are essentially pre-historic times. I say there is
        no ranking of disciplines, multi-disciplinary approaches are possible
        and you will find that a historian who wants to include pre-historic
        sections in his research will more often than not have to rely on
        archaeologists and linguists.

        Dirk



        --- In gothic-l@egroups.com, "Philip Rusche" <ruschep@n...> wrote:
        > > every discipline must have an object of research. Historians study
        > > written documents. No documents - no history, nothing much to do
        for a
        > > historian. Can, in your view, a historian research the history of
        the
        > > Neandertals? Let me answer that for you: No, he/she can't, not
        because
        > > it is so far back in time, but because there are no written
        documents.
        > > The same applies to any period which is 'pre-history'.
        >
        > This seems to me a fairly narrow definition of "historian."
        Historians
        > study many things besides written documents, e.g. coins, grave
        goods, art,
        > etc. I especially think excluding archaeology from the field of
        history
        > would find little favor with historians, whether the period is
        modern,
        > medieval, or before written documents are preserved. It doesn't
        mean there
        > aren't historians who study only written documents, but confining
        the term
        > to them seems overly limiting.
        >
        > Philip Rusche
        > (who isn't a historian either)
        >
        >
        >
        > > I have indeed never heard of the 'big-history' concept. Do feel
        free
        > > to enligthen us. Especially, historians may be interested to hear
        > > about that.
        > >
        > > As for my background, I am an academic with doctorate, so I am
        > > familiar with scientific method, the discipline is not relevant
        for
        > > our dicussion. You have not given your background either, i.e.
        > > university degree and discipline. Just 'writer' can mean anything.
        > > Also, in the past you have tended to attack the competency of
        > > scientists, (like calling Dahl's books of limited value
        etc.)instead
        > > of their evidence, so I don't want to open myself to this line of
        > > fire.
        > >
        > > Dirk
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In gothic-l@egroups.com, bertil <mvk575b@t...> wrote:
        > > > Dirk,
        > > >
        > > > No, history deals with periods way
        > > > behind the time when written records
        > > > exist.
        > > >
        > > > The latest in this field is the so called
        > > > "big history". It seems as if you are
        > > > not quite abreast with the developments
        > > > in this field which of course brings
        > > > me back, even more curious, about your
        > > > background. Let me at a future time return
        > > > to the concept of "big history".
        > > >
        > > > Germanically
        > > >
        > > > Bertil
        > > >
        > > > > any student of history learns in his/her first lecture at
        > > University
        > > > > that the field of study of an historian is the historic era
        of
        > > > > humankind. And that the historic era starts whenever first
        > > contemprary
        > > > > written sources appear for that particular culture. Historian
        need
        > > > > historical sources to study, if there are no historical
        sources to
        > > > > study, they have to rely on evidence and interpretations
        supplied
        > > by
        > > > > archaelogists, linguists and other disciplines. A historian
        would
        > >
        > > > > never try to write the history of pre-historic people. Perhaps
        we
        > > have
        > > > > one or two historians on the list who could quickly confirm
        that.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a
        blank email
        > to <gothic-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com>.
        > > Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.