05-09-2016, 11:52 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2016, 12:10 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: spacing
)
Anton,
Of course, what you say makes complete sense from your perspective, and reminds me that most people haven't been around all that long, haven't yet become so jaded by the sight of the same-old, same-old pictures produced in support.
Anyway - thank you to the moderators for an environment where alternatives can be raised and even discussed reasonably, even if for a little while. There has been no such place, since c.2002 or so, where this was able to happen without unpleasantness.
D.
JKP.
My point is that one can either research the manuscript to learn more about what it contains, and implies. OR one can devote one's efforts to hunting endlessly for matter likely to support an idea that the individual wants to see believed widely.
If the aim is to determine where the manuscript was manufactured (to use as neutral a term as possible) the way to address that question is through codicology and palaeography.
If the aim is to clarify the culture, place and time(s) from which precedents were gained, then the enquiry and research has to be pursued without a sub-text of trying to limit the range of examples adduced, the media which may be considered, or by blanking research and evidence which happens to stand against a favoured theory.
Attempting to find enough evidence to support a notion that the manuscript was made in Germany, or by German-speakers, or that it expresses a 'germanic' culture has been around now for two full decades. Everything which can be adduced in its favour and is still being produced here is stuff that has already been chewed over.. and over... and over.. endlessly ...
in THAT context your true statement has to be understood:
Of course, what you say makes complete sense from your perspective, and reminds me that most people haven't been around all that long, haven't yet become so jaded by the sight of the same-old, same-old pictures produced in support.
Anyway - thank you to the moderators for an environment where alternatives can be raised and even discussed reasonably, even if for a little while. There has been no such place, since c.2002 or so, where this was able to happen without unpleasantness.
D.
JKP.
My point is that one can either research the manuscript to learn more about what it contains, and implies. OR one can devote one's efforts to hunting endlessly for matter likely to support an idea that the individual wants to see believed widely.
If the aim is to determine where the manuscript was manufactured (to use as neutral a term as possible) the way to address that question is through codicology and palaeography.
If the aim is to clarify the culture, place and time(s) from which precedents were gained, then the enquiry and research has to be pursued without a sub-text of trying to limit the range of examples adduced, the media which may be considered, or by blanking research and evidence which happens to stand against a favoured theory.
Attempting to find enough evidence to support a notion that the manuscript was made in Germany, or by German-speakers, or that it expresses a 'germanic' culture has been around now for two full decades. Everything which can be adduced in its favour and is still being produced here is stuff that has already been chewed over.. and over... and over.. endlessly ...
in THAT context your true statement has to be understood:
Quote:there isn't enough DATA