This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have translated the Norwegian article, to wich I have made many contributions, into English. Please feel free to correct spelling mistakes etc. -- IdaLandberg ( talk) 10:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this some kind of demonstration? This article has far more references than usual, everything is backed up by evidence. -- IdaLandberg ( talk) 20:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There are issues relating to due weight here. The Norwegian Claus Krag had a prominent position and was lauded with the anecdote "Krag's perception was captivating and won widespread acclaim". The hypercritical school is nothing new. In the 19th century, it claimed that the royal barrows at Gamla Uppsala were nothing but natural formations, which provoked an excavation to prove them wrong, and which it did. In the 1990s, Krag painted a picture where the Icelandic scholars of the 12th and 13th centuries were involved in some kind of conspiracy. He was answered by Olof Sundquist who published his dissertation Freyr's Offspring (2000), and it entailed a "rejection of the hypercritical line of research" [1]. There are simply too many points that support its authenticity like kennings, place names, personal names, cultural traits, etc. Sapp (2002) studied the language of Ynglingatal and pointed out that it cannot be a late production (Sapp, C.D. 'Dating Ynglingatal. Chronological Metrical Developments in Kviduhattr', Skandinavistik 2002:2, s. 85-98). I had a look at the University of Aberdeen's Skaldic project, where they state that scholars like Krag have failed to prove their hypothesis, " a convincing case has not been made against the authenticity of the poem as a ninth-century creation". This means that we simply cannot give the same weight to Krag's hypothesis as we do to the standard dating. Sure, Krag should be part of a historiography section, but that is it.-- Berig ( talk) 06:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have translated the Norwegian article, to wich I have made many contributions, into English. Please feel free to correct spelling mistakes etc. -- IdaLandberg ( talk) 10:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this some kind of demonstration? This article has far more references than usual, everything is backed up by evidence. -- IdaLandberg ( talk) 20:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There are issues relating to due weight here. The Norwegian Claus Krag had a prominent position and was lauded with the anecdote "Krag's perception was captivating and won widespread acclaim". The hypercritical school is nothing new. In the 19th century, it claimed that the royal barrows at Gamla Uppsala were nothing but natural formations, which provoked an excavation to prove them wrong, and which it did. In the 1990s, Krag painted a picture where the Icelandic scholars of the 12th and 13th centuries were involved in some kind of conspiracy. He was answered by Olof Sundquist who published his dissertation Freyr's Offspring (2000), and it entailed a "rejection of the hypercritical line of research" [1]. There are simply too many points that support its authenticity like kennings, place names, personal names, cultural traits, etc. Sapp (2002) studied the language of Ynglingatal and pointed out that it cannot be a late production (Sapp, C.D. 'Dating Ynglingatal. Chronological Metrical Developments in Kviduhattr', Skandinavistik 2002:2, s. 85-98). I had a look at the University of Aberdeen's Skaldic project, where they state that scholars like Krag have failed to prove their hypothesis, " a convincing case has not been made against the authenticity of the poem as a ninth-century creation". This means that we simply cannot give the same weight to Krag's hypothesis as we do to the standard dating. Sure, Krag should be part of a historiography section, but that is it.-- Berig ( talk) 06:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)