> Jim Bugslag wrote:
>
> >....for the present, I tend to side with the development from antique sources
> into Germanic traditions....
>
>
> sorry, Jim, I'm not sure what you mean by "antique" here -- surely not
> classical "antiquity"?
>
> whereforeart these "antique sources"?
>
> btw, curious it is to see that this fundamental and deceptively simple
> problem, which must have been seriously re-visited repeatedly over the last
> century (at least), still has no generally accepted solution.
Dear Christopher,
The problem is indeed "deceptively simple" when one considers the
migrations of peoples, their various relations with and reactions to
the late or sub-antique populations of the Roman Empire, or what
remained of them in northwestern Europe, and the elusive presence of
older ethnic groups (i.e. the "Celts") in the region. The cultural
interactions, syntheses, appropriations and impositions, many of
them accompanying much broader religious, political, ethnic and/or
ideological issues, would be a complex phenomenon to analyse fully if
all of the evidence survived, but trying to piece it together from
fragments - and those of a highly selective nature (e.g. grave
goods, hoards, Gospel manuscripts) - is anything but simple,
particularly when elements of those cultures have been appropriated
themselves by much more recent interest groups. This is, indeed, a
problem which has been, and should continue to be re-visited. Such
fundamental evidence as Sutton Hoo and the St Ninian's Isle hoard
have not been available to scholars for the whole of the past
century, and historical, archaeological and art historical
methods have changed dramatically over the past few decades.
Cheers,
Jim Bugslag
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|