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

Re: [gothic-l] Re: (H)eruli in Iceland

Expand Messages
  • Sahin Ahmet
    which continental language is icelandic closest? old norwegian? old swedish? or gothic? ... ### Hail Odhvaknir. Sorry for my late response. I dont go so often
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 2, 2002
      which continental language is icelandic closest? old norwegian? old swedish? or gothic?
      einarbirg <einarbirg@...> wrote:


      --- In gothic-l@y..., "hrafnsnest" <mimir@s...> wrote:

      > Hail Einar!
      >
      > Tore indicated that you are of the opinion that some of the (H)
      > eruli made the migration to Iceland. Not that I disagree with you,
      > but what are your sources, and what is the physical evidence?
      >
      > Odhvaknir


      ### Hail Odhvaknir.

      Sorry for my late response. I dont go so often in computers these
      days.
      There was a very extensive discusson about that subject last winter.

      No there was not any Heruli that went to Iceland.

      But there is a possibility that aristocratic chieftainly families of
      Swedish and Danish descent who could trace their ancestry to Heruli
      aristocratic families were among the leading families controlling the
      settlement of Iceland.

      Yes,Icelanders were not Norwegians.
      They were a mixed stock of Scandinavians and Celts coming from
      Scandinavian settlements in the British Isles.
      These Scandinavians seem to be mainly to have been of Swedish and
      Danish descent.
      Having mostly(most likely) what is now present day South-east Norway
      as their place of origin. Coming from there direcly to Iceland or
      from the British Isles.
      Yes,south east Norway was not Norway in the settlement period of
      Iceland.

      I have put forth extensive argumentation for this hypothesis and
      among other sources used the writings of Barthi Guthmundsson about
      that possibility which was published in the English language in 1967.
      The book�s name is "The origin of the Icelanders"


      I will not go through my sources because that I have done many times.
      You have to find the letters on Germ-L. Mainly(think so) from
      november last year(more or less)

      Physical evidence can only be something based on anthropological
      reaserch(physical anthropology) and DNA reaserch on skeletons from
      old graves and DNA reaserch on the present day populations..

      Physical anthropology says that Icelanders can not be Scandinavians.
      They were already in the beginning mixed(up to 70-80%) with some
      other stock of people that can only be the Celts or people from the
      British Isles.

      DNA reaserch says that up to 40-45% of the original settlers
      population was of the Celtic origin.
      But there are strong indications that some groups of the original
      settlers population could trace their ancestry to Continental Europe.
      Like present day Germany and Austria.
      Barthi�s Heruli hypothesis is well known in Iceland and one genetic
      scientist has opened up the possibility of such a migration to
      Scandinavia if Icelandic material is taken into account.
      That is the Heruli migration to Sweden could explain the Continental
      genes in question that can be traced back to the original settlers
      population.

      You have to find my letters on Germ-L. if you want more info.

      So there is nothing more to discuss here until new evidence comes to
      light.
      DNA and anthropological reaserch will give some answers.
      But so far,reaserch and new evidence has only supported Barthi�s
      hypothesis.

      Cheers Einar.


      You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com>.

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



      ---------------------------------
      Do You Yahoo!?
      New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • fericzobor
      ... old swedish? or gothic? Since Icelandic belongs to the Western Scandinavic subgroup, together with Norwegian (Old Norwegian and Landsmal/Nynorsk) and
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 3, 2002
        --- In gothic-l@y..., Sahin Ahmet <ahmetsahinn@y...> wrote:
        >
        > which continental language is icelandic closest? old norwegian?
        old swedish? or gothic?

        Since Icelandic belongs to the Western Scandinavic subgroup, together
        with Norwegian (Old Norwegian and Landsmal/Nynorsk) and Faroese, the
        closest continental language to Icelandic is Old Norwegian. They
        share some phonetic innovations not found in Eastern Scandinavic
        (Danish, Swedish, Gutnish).

        Francisc
      • einarbirg
        ... together ... the ... #### It is obvious for a Icelander that Faroese is more like the Icelandic language than any other language. Very likely Iceland and
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 5, 2002
          --- In gothic-l@y..., "fericzobor" <fericzobor@y...> wrote:
          > --- In gothic-l@y..., Sahin Ahmet <ahmetsahinn@y...> wrote:
          > >
          > > which continental language is icelandic closest? old norwegian?
          > old swedish? or gothic?
          >
          > Since Icelandic belongs to the Western Scandinavic subgroup,
          together
          > with Norwegian (Old Norwegian and Landsmal/Nynorsk) and Faroese,
          the
          > closest continental language to Icelandic is Old Norwegian. They
          > share some phonetic innovations not found in Eastern Scandinavic
          > (Danish, Swedish, Gutnish).
          >
          > Francisc

          #### It is obvious for a Icelander that Faroese is more like the
          Icelandic language than any other language.
          Very likely Iceland and the Faroe islands was settled by the same
          people. That is Scandinavian and Celts from the British Isles(mainly)
          According to legends the Faroe islands had a first settler. His name
          is Celtic!
          The supposed to be stronger similarities to Norwegian than to Danish
          and Swedish are possible to explain with the close cultural and
          political contacts between Iceland and Norway from the 11th to the 14
          century.
          Iceland was in the influence sphere of Norway for a long time.
          And partly ruled from Norway in the end of the period.

          Then we have to take into account when comparing old languages that
          we need literature to compare. And here scholars mix freely together
          Icelandic and Norwegian literature.
          It seems to be a reason to belief that making books was a industry in
          Iceland in the period when Norwegian influences was strongest.
          And the main country of export was Norway.
          And Icelandic scribes were employed in Norway.
          So what is old Norwegian literature and what is Icelandic!

          Anyway having close cultural and political contacs does not make
          people genetically related.
          That is one of the conclusions genetic reaserch have to offer.


          Icelandic is much more "pure" now than 1-200 years ago. Because the
          Danish language was infiltering the Icelandic language. Because of
          the close cultural and political contacts.
          Very likely it was the same in the period Iceland was closely
          connected to Norway.

          I know nothing about phonetics but place names in Iceland obviously
          have a widespread origin from over most of the Scandinavian area.
          Against all the evidence against the Norwegian origin of the
          Icelanders(including genetic results) some phonetic innovations can
          not be taken as proving anything about the origin of the settlers
          coming to Iceland 1100-1200 years ago.


          Bless,bless Einar.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.