L.L.Hammerich in a book review titled ’Dansk Tunge’, printed in "Danske Studier" 1953, p 118, expresses disagreement and disbelief, but as I am able to read it, no refutation. The review ends: 'Hovedtesen kan ikke være rigtig. Det er ikke fundet noget holdbart argument for, at udtrykket "dansk tunge" skulde være ældre end vikingetiden eller anvendt i fællesnordisk betydning udenfor vestnordisk område. Men derfor var det dog herligt at fare. De gode og rigtige oplysninger har deres verd trods den teori, vi ikke kan tro på. Skulde en kristen ikke kunde læse en god muhammedansk dogmatik men fornøjelse? - så er han i hvert fald, måske en god kristen, men en dårlig videnskabsmand.'
Hammerich also seems to believe that Melberg's hypothesis rests mainly on the literary sources, and he does not pay much attention to the discussion of ethnic nomenclature, except stating that it 'fører ikke til meget, da den er for ensidig.' Since few of the list writers (oldnorsenet) seem to have read 'Origin of the Scandinavian Nations and Languages', and I assume this goes for the list readers also, the few paragraphs cited below illustrate that linguistic,literary, and archaeological material are used as independent sources for testing a hypothesis that has been derived from linguistic data. (exactly the multidiscipline-approach mentioned in Norbert Strade's and Carl E. Anderson's letters 16 June 1998).
With respect to Saxo, Melberg was fully aware of his reputation. On p899 he writes: 'The greatest surprise was caused by Saxo Grammaticus (who, owing to his reputation, was the last authority to be consulted).' In a letter 6 June 1953 he writes: '--på Nationalmuseet og Københavns Universitet i 1946 hadde jeg med en del sagnhistorie (altså som sekundært eller tertiert stoff). Men om Saxo ymtet jeg ikke en stavelse. Av to grunner. For det første visste jeg at Saxo var en rød klut for mange om ikke alle danske kildeskriftgranskere, og at hvis jeg trakk ham inn, ville det knapt bli tid til å snakke om annet. For det andre hadde jeg da bare påbegynt gjennomgåelsen av Saxo. Hans verk hadde jeg spart til sist på grunn av hans store vanry som en "naiv" sjel og en "ordgyder".--'
Stig Ørjan Ohlsson (Danske studier 1978 i omtale av ’The Scandinavian
Languages’ av Einar Haugen):
’Not. Kommen så långt i min kritik av Haugens helhetssyn
på äldre nordisk språkhistoria, var det naturligt för
mig att undersöka om inte en sådan tankegång formulerats
tidigare. Det har den faktiskt till viss del, i ett verk på 952 sidor,
avfattat på engelska. Det återfinns emellertid inte i Haugens
nämnda bibliografiska förarbeten. Øverhuvudtaget har det
lämnat få spår efter sig. Der det nämns (anmälan
av L.L. Hammerich, Danske Studier 1953; litteraturhenvisningar i Kulturhistoriskt
lexikon under oppslagsorden dansk tunga, norrönt språk) är
det ”dödsskallemärkt”. På det hela förefaller det
aldrig ha blivit känt.
… Melberg framför her en teori om språkförhållanden
och politiska förhållanden i Norden under äldre tid, som
utgår från en analys av begreppet dansk tunga. Han tar det
som ett vitnesbörd om att när medeltida källor från
Norge, Island och Sverige brukar termen om sitt språk, så beror
det på en invasion av daner under folkvandringstidenöver hela
Skandinavien, med genomgripande språkliga konsekvenser.
Det må vara att Melbergs tes, med dess enormt vidlyftiga argumentation,
är omöjlig att acceptera i dess helt konkreta form. Pusselbitarna
från olika källor (Saxo, Snorre, arkeologiska fynd, analys av
olika språkliga termer etc.) förefaller att passa blott alt
før väl (sic.) samman. Den intelligent genomförda argumentationen
har dock visat vilka utrymmen som finns för en alternativ helhetsbild
av det språkliga och politiska Norden under förhistorisk tid,
och hur bräcklig den traditionella språkhistoriska uppfattningen,
om ett stort homogent språkområde, men med dokumenterat omvälvande
språkförändringar – ter sig.
Det kan åtminstone vara värt att häva dödsskallemärkningen
av Melbergs verk, och det finns skäl att beklaga att Haugen tydligen
inte har känt till det.’
-and that is all that I am aware of, of anything like ’scholarly’ critique.
Most present researchers seem to be satisfied with tracing the language and culture back to a 'Protoscandinavian' or common 'North Germanic' culture, and then continue to speak of Norwegians, Danes, and Swedes, as brother peoples with unknown parents. Below are 6 recent samples of what I have found. The 7th sample is older and presents a theory of the origin of the Scandinavian nations. Is this one consistent with present views?
1) Odenstedt (1990) about the runes:
(who?)
'The runes were created by a group of people. These may have been merchants,
as assumed by Moltke, or Germanic soldiers who had been in Roman service'
(why?)
'The primitiveness of the inscriptions indicates that the runic script
during the first few centuries AD was poorly developed, exercised by a
few "rune masters", and used chiefly epigraphically, as an imitation of
Roman epigraphy, but also for magical and decorative purposes. The art
of writing was a luxury that the German people had seen the Romans practice,
and which they tried to imitate, with very limited success'
{During the period 200-600 this group, or a somehow closely related group of people, spread their influence and language over a major part of Scandinavia}
2) Knut Helle(1998) p241, p243,on development of ethnic groups:
'We know little of the development of Scandinavian ethnic groups prior
to the point where it was natural for Ottarr and his contemporaries to
distinguish between them. How long before this time Norwegians had been
living in Norway is unknown. A more fundamental question is what we
mean by Norwegian. ..
One precondition of an ethnic society is a common language. The early
runic inscriptions from AD 200 - 600 indicate that there was in this period
a common 'Nordic language', although it must to a large extent also have
been shared by other Germanic speaking peoples in
north-west Europe.'
{This is a very cautious statement, indicating, without trying to identify, a dominating ethnic unit extending throughout Scandinavia}
3) Gwyn Jones
(1984) (Folio Society edition 1997)
p68 - 71, on Danish tongue and ethnic
homogeneity:
'The Danish Tongue began at the Eider and ended where the Norsemen ended. It was a world apart from most of the laguages surrounding it, whether Lappish, Finnish,or Slavic, and clearly differentiated from Germanic languages neighbouring it to the south. By historical design or geograhical accident (sic) it became the language of Iceland, Greenland, and the Atlantic isles, ... In Scandinavia itself the glory of the Danish tongue was that it served as a shield wall to the cultural unity of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, and encouraged them to think of themselves as members of one family, however unruly. ... There is a remarkable homogeneity about the arts and culture of these nations...The leading families of Scandinavia were much intermarried for 'sound business reasons', and their estates were far-spread. Great ones do not ride alone: there was a leaven of Danes in Norway and Sweden, Norwegians in Sweden and Denmark, Swedes in Norway and Denmark, ruling, serving, fighting, buying and selling, toiling and moiling, mating and marrying,...
{The two last sentences describe a situation of ethnic homogeneity, but in way of explanation, the final 'toiling and moiling and mating and marrying' jabberwocky simply cries for a better one! Why should this work wonders in the geographically poorly connected Scandinavia, and not in Central Europe?}
4) Anders Hagen (1987) p 238, on social structure in Roman iron age:
(Unauthorized translation from Norwegian)
.The burial practices {at Hunn, Østfold} testify to a strong
social differentiation. If this conclusion is correct, the society in the
Roman iron age could be described in more detail than what is usually done.
While the mounted chieftain at Hunn was one of several local representatives
of a continental high status group, many of those who got an anonymous
burial site belonged to the large, locally anchored lower class'
5) Bjørn Myhre (1998) p26, on the Norwegian chieftains:
'The traditional hypothesis of economic and demographic crisis in the late sixth and early seventh centuries has been questioned. .. The changes that can be seen in the archaeological record .. are tentatively interpreted as a consequence of a reorganization of settlements and of a social and political development that led to the centralization of power in the hands of the aristocracy and leading farmers. ...these Norwegian petty kingdoms were integrated into the large-scale economic and political network that developed around the southern shores of the North Sea during the late 7th and 8th centuries. Norwegian petty kings and chieftains seem to have participated in a network of trade, alliances and warfare between political centres in Scandinavia. ... In addition to the abovementioned commodities, ideas, ideologies, and knowledge were probably exchanged'
6) Dagfinn Skre (1998)
{Skre draws a detailed picture of the development in Romerike, (south-east Norway) based on archaeological and written material. The picture shows a development of the population along with a concentration of power, culminating in the 6th century, when the area is totally dominated by the aristocracy at Sørum. Around this time Raknehaugen is built, and the local fortifications 'bygdeborgene', have outplayed their defensive role. Skre does not mention immigration or invasion as processes in this development.} On p 338 he says (unauthorized translation from Norwegian):
'The few finds from the early part of this period show that the rulers
of Romerike were integrated in the common aristocratic culture in Denmark,
south Sweden, and southern Norway.'
{The local picture of Romerike drawn by Dagfinn Skre appears to be
fully consistent, both in pattern and time, with Melberg’s ”creative conquest”
hypothesis}
7) Håkon
Melberg (1953) ('Origin..')
p154 on ethnic nomenclature:
'..Figure 3 shows the general pattern applied as a clue to the Scandinavian
problem. It begins with a fact of history. The national name of 'Islendingar'
originated in the decades about A.D. 900, whereas approximately 500
years were to elapse before the corresponding language-name 'islenzk
tunga' or 'a islenzku' made its appearance. Now who created the Icelandic
nation? .. It is common knowledge that the founders of Iceland were Norwegians,
'Norroenir menn'. However, the answer may also be found indirectly,
by going from the people's name, 'islendingar', through the ethnic heterogeneity
zone {referring to the figure}, to the language-name preceding 'islenzk
tunga', viz. 'norroen tunga' This language-name is the indirect indication
of the ethnic origin of the Icelanders. As in the Gaelic case, the two
ways lead to the same goal. The next step is to determine which people
set up the Norwegian nation. This is unknown, and there is no direct approach
to to the problem. The set of heterogeneous ethnic names, however, is on record, 'norroenir menn'
for the people, and 'donsk tunga' for the language; and that opens
up an indirect approach to the problem; leading to the present hypothesis
of a Danish origin for the Norwegian (and Swedish) nations. The fact that the older,
all-Scandinavian language-name 'donsk tunga' overlaps the commencement
of the two subsequent language-names in Iceland, seems to be a sign that
the Danish conquest of the Scandinavian peninsula occurred in a prehistoric
time not so remote as one might think.'
p441 Norwegian ethnogenesis:
'Norway's auto-ethnic name 'Norvegr' testifies to the fact that the
country was occupied by people immigrating from the south. The fact that
'Nordvegsmenn' as well as 'Nordmenn' became the auto-ethnic title of of
Norway's population, as distinct from other Scandinavian nations, shows
that the southern area from which these occupants came must have been in
Scandinavia, that is, to the north of the continental teutons, who referred
to all Scandinavians by the allo-ethnic name 'Northmen'. These Norwegian
auto-ethnic names, including the homogeneous auto-ethnic language-name
'norroen tunga', are of a specific {i.e. not generic} and explicitly non-tribal
character, thus indicating that the Norwegian nation began by being the
northern sub-unit of a greater people. .. This reveals that the Norwegian
nation owes its genesis to a process of ethnic disintegration.'
Ch.5,p447 (ending the capter on ethnic nomenclature):
'There was a prehistoric Danish occupation of very great parts of the
Scandinavian peninsula. It has been proved, solely by means of facts of
ethnic nomenclature, that Swethiudh, or Sweden proper in the Stockholm
region, had been set up prior to that occupation, that the victorious Danes
adopted "Swedes" as one of their specific titles through a process of ethnic
blending, and that the Norwegian nation originated as a Danish settlement.
This expansion did not lead to the establishment of one all-Scandinavian
Danish kingdom, at least not one of any considerable permanence, but the
theoretical possibility of the one-time existence of a loosely joined all-
scandinavian Danish empire, governed by Danish kings and their vassals,
will have to be considered. This completes the study based on ethnic nomenclature.'
Introduction to Ch 8, p553 (Traditions of prehistoric Danish conquests):
'The inferences suggested by the varied material of ethnic, personal, and titular nomenclature examined in the previous chapters, all build up to the conclusion that the Danes invaded the Scandinavian peninsula in prehistoric times and laid the foundation of the nations of Norway and Greater Sweden. Thus originated all peoples of North Germanic speech. The data underlying this conclusion were linguistic and of such a nature that their historical implication remained hidden to the speakers of the language. These data cannot have been subjected to conscious manipulation, and are therefore scientifically significant. The fact that Iceland has two auto-ethnic language-names of the overlapping type, one of them being donsk tunga, was found to convey a message of relative chronological import: that the Danish occupation of the Scandinavian peninsula must have occurred during an unexpectedly recent period of the prehistoric era, a few centuries before the colonisation of Iceland. The hypothesis is so far suspended in the vacuum of generalised reasoning, and will now be put to the test of being applied to facts that can be fixed in terms of space and time. -- The folklore dealing with the ancient Teutonic North is an extensive field of study, abounding in detail, so a certain restraint must be excerted regarding the inclusion of particulars; but the selection will be done with a mimimum of preformed opinion as to what is reliable and unreliable. Respect must be shown for the integrity of the source records, even those displaying such a wilderness of style and argument that their outward appearance seems to alienate them from all actual happenings. One fact will constantly be kept in mind: a literary statement's quality of form is *not* a criterion for its degree of truth.'
p605 (concluding the discussion of Paul Hermann's and Axel Olrik's
viewon Gesta Danorum):
'The conclusions, reviewed above, as to the non.existence of a series
of conquests and conquerors have been drawn from criteria that have no
such implication. Establishing (in the few cases when this word applies)
that one literary source has been influenced by another, scientfically
means that, and no more - not, for instance, that the events and persons
described in the two sources have been invented. -- Saxo and the other
literary sources must be put to the test of scientifically significant
facts - significant not because they are ethnically more explicit than
the literary record, but because they constitute a record totally independent
of the literary.'
p760 (concluding the discussion of literary and archaeological findings):
'These proto-Danish immigrants overran part of the Danish Isles and
launched a northward drive to annex Central Sweden, with its iron-ore resources,
and after this increase of their power they struck southward again to
incorporate Zealand and set up the Kingdom of Denmark. That was the
first major phase in the creation of the Scandinavian nations by the Danes.
Thenceforward Denmark continued to pour bands and armies of conquerors
into the Scandinavian peininsula. .. The decades about A.D. 200 and
the third quarter of the 6th century A.D. are the two termini marking the
total span of time in which the Danes carved out and consolidated Norway
and Greater Sweden... The almost constant axis in in that long politico-strategic
and ethnic process were the Danish Isles and Danicised Central Sweden.
Two particularly vehement outbursts of aggression occurred in the second
half of the 5th century and the first part of the 6th, all building
up to a climax about A.D. 560. Those years saw military operations on an
unprecedented scale.. so decisive that they initiated an epoch of inter-Scandinavian
peace.'
--
One is now free to tackle the third proposition of the hypothesis,
concerning the language. What is immediately noticed is a most remarkable
coincidence: - the period determined above for the 'originative' Danish
conquests-- is the same as that covered by the remains of the form of the
language called Primitive Scandinavian or Primitive Nordic. '
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The insertions in { } are my comments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melberg's hypothesis regarding the ethnogenesis of the Scandinavian Nations is consistent also with the present picture of the pre viking-age Scandinavia. There is a high degree of coincidence, both in general pattern and time scale, between the recent extracts 1) - 6), and the 40 years older 7). Bjørn Myhres interpretation of the archaeological material, cfr 5), is particularly interesting. The 'reorganization' and 'political processes' coincide exactly with Melberg's final phase of the Danish expansion.
Have I missed something? Are anyone else interested in Scandinavian
ethnogenesis? Are any scholars on this list familiar with Melberg's analysis
and classification of ethnic nomenclature, or is there a newer one?
When Morten Axboe says it is difficult to find support of Melberg's
hypothesis, he is right in a way, since the work still appears to be
unknown. However, the recent research results I have seen so far, appear
to be consistent with Melberg's hypothesis, and no alternative hypotheses
for the genesis of the Scandinavian nations from a common 'North Germanic'
source have been offered. Thus, I think I have found a lot of support,
and even strong support, since the works appear to have been written without
knowledge of Melberg's work.
One discussor wrote (excerpt):
>
>.. Melberg's 'invasion hypothesis' and 'language replacement' ideas
>are what make his theories as anachronistic as they are. However,..
> ...
>Melberg's analysis. Melberg's work bears the marks of both its
>time and his unfamiliarity with academic methodology. However, he..
I will comment on the two characterizations above that was used about 'Origin of the Scandinavian Nations and Languages' namely that "it bears the mark of it's time", which was about 1940 - 1952, and that it is "anachronistic". Of course all books bear marks of their time. In one aspect, however, I think Melberg's book was ahead of it's time. (It was of course also badly timed, released into the post-war patriotism that followed the 1940-45 occupation and the 1945 liberation of Norway) My impression is that a major part of Scandinavian history- and language research, at least up to 1950 was motivated by patriotic feelings. Perhaps it still is. This will of course make it difficult to search for origins outside la patria. Norwegians have been living in Norway since the stone age, Sweden was one of the oldest nations in Europe, and Denmark likewise. The age of migrations barely touched Scandinavia, only some emigration, serving to spread our honour and prestige, is recorded, at least in Norwegian history textbooks. From this pattern Melberg's work sticks out, allowing for immigration as part of the making of nations. Obvious as it is, the result must have been very embarassing to a lot of historians, and to the man in the street as well. I will cite a Danish scholar, Professor Dr. Poul Diderichsen's description in a letter to the author dated Aug 25, 1953:
'.. En sådan stringens i metoden, en så energisk gennemført expliticering af hele argumentationen er jo en sjældenhed i den filologiske litteratur, og virker derfor meget stærkt når man møder den. Man vil næppe i fremtidige undersøgelser over folke- og sprognavne slippe godt fra at overse det teoretiske grundlag De her har givet.... Det vil nok tage sin tid, før folk får tænkt sine tanker om på det nye grundlag De har skabt. Det er jo et mægtigt revisionsarbejde De tvinger os alle ind i. Men hvis dette arbejde ikke vil blive udgangspunkt for en frugtbar diskussion, så er de nordiske filologer virkelig endnu mer trege, end man i almindelighed anser dem for at være (hvilket ikke er så ganske lidt). ...'
To call a work anachronistic, which I interprete as outdated, I think
it is required to have something newer and better, to replace it with.
So far I have not been able to find any newer and different model for the
creation of the Scandinavian nations and languages. I don't think anachronistic
is a relevant descriptor here, and I think everyone interested in early
Scandinavian language and history should be encouraged to read the book.
