| Popis: |
This master thesis is a historiographical analysis and discussion of mainly Nils Hybel’s, Peter H. Sawyer’s, Niels Lund’s and Michael H. Gelting’s representation of the formation of the Danish realm and political relationship with the German Roman Empire in the late Viking and early Middle Ages (950-1100). I analyze and discuss the representation of the following historic events: Harald Bluetooth's transition to Christianity and Christianization of Denmark, the Danish ring forts and Dannevirke, and the church establishment in Denmark. These focus areas have been chosen because of Hybels radical new interpretation of these events: That Denmark in late Viking and early Middle Ages was a German Roman vassal state, and because of his criticism that previous interpretors have closed their eyes to this, and instead interpreted the abovementioned events within a narrow Danish national context. This triggered a debate in Historisk Tidsskrift volumes 104 and 105 (2004), which went beyond ordinary academic decorum, where the tone was highly sarcastic and personal. Nils Hybel was reviled for his research methodology, e.g. by Niels Lund and Peter Sawyer while Niels Hybel’s counterargument claimed that their criticism was rooted in a defense of a national historic romantic representation of the formation of the Danish realm and the political relationship with the German Roman Empire. In my master thesis, I examine and discuss, whether the critical point of both positions are justified by their representations of Harald Bluetooth's transition to Christianity and Christianization of Denmark, the Danish ring forts and Dannevirke, and the establishment of the church in Denmark in the late Viking and early Middle Ages, and why the debate was so snide and personal. Based on my analysis and discussion I conclude that both the criticism of Hybel’s research and Hybels statement, that Danish medieval research is characterized by a narrow Danish national production is justified. I also conclude that the sarcastic tone of the debate which is due to personal and career conflicts between the debaters, is at risk damaging the professional and personal reputation of both parties. Finally, I set the hypothesis that the underlying reason for the sarcastic tone of the debate is because there is a paradigm shift around the formation of the Danish realm and political relationship with the the German Roman Empire at stake in Danish medieval research which affects something as central as our understanding of what Denmark as a nation is. |
