Arne Søby Christensen | |
|---|---|
| Born | 1945 (age 80–81) Copenhagen, Denmark |
| Academic work | |
| Discipline | History |
| Institutions | |
| Notable works | Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths |
Arne Søby Christensen (born 1945) is a Danishhistorian. He is an associate professor in history at theUniversity of Copenhagen.[1]
Arne Søby Christensen was born inCopenhagen in 1945. He received acand.mag. inhistory from theUniversity of Copenhagen in 1975.[2] His bookLactantius the Historian was published in 1980.[3] From 1989 to 1998, Christensen was a member of theDanish Historical Society.[4]
The basic contention of this book is that nothing in the first third ofJordanes'sGetica has anything whatsoever to do with a history of theGoths.
Christensen received his PhD in history from the University of Copenhagen in June 2002. Hisdisputation was supervised byIan N. Wood andNiels Lund.[2] His thesis,Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths, concerned the reliability ofGetica byJordanes and the latter's alleged chief source, the now lostOrigo Gothica byCassiodorus.[2] In his thesis, Christensen claims that theOrigo Gothica andGetica are entirely fabricated accounts without any foundation inGothic oral tradition, being instead based upon a dubious synthesis ofGreco-Roman sources. Christensen claims that the Greco-Romans knew nothing about the Goths until the 3rd century AD,[2] and that archaeological evidence on Gothic origins is useless.[6] On this account, Christensen recommended that the history of themigration period be rewritten.[2]
AnEnglish translation of Christensen's thesis was published in 2002 byMuseum Tusculanum Press.[7] Christensen's thesis has generated much interest among scholars.[8] It was praised byWalter Goffart as a useful work.[9] AnthropologistPeter S. Wells considered it a significant contribution to the study of ancient peoples of northern Europe.[10] Ian N. Wood considered it an interesting work, although he thought Christensen went too far in denying Gothic elements in the texts.[11] Sigbjørn Sønnesyn considered Christensen's theories suspiciously similar tocircular reasoning.[12]Michael Whitby dismissed Christensen's work as extreme and a mere footnote to what has already been written on the subject.[13]Dick Harrison considered Christensen's book interesting, although he criticized its rejection of archaeological evidence and refusal to respond to the views of dissenting scholars.[14]
I am much indebted to Professor Niels Lund (Copenhagen) for sending me Christensen's work
Christensen concludes that Jordanes'sGetica is a fabricated account... Christensen's clear and systematic presentation makes this book a significant contribution to the literature on the formation of the early historical peoples of Europe
I think that Christensen has been too stringent in denying the existence of Gothic elements in the text...
Peter Heather has argued that Jordanes' account of the genealogy of the Amal family may in part be based on a Gothic tradition. This claim is opposed by Christensen with something looking suspiciously like circular argumentation.
This is surely too extreme... [T]he fact remains that this, even if very clearly presented and argued, is little more than a long footnote to Heather's work; only real enthusiasts will feel the need to consult it.
My main objection is Christensen's excessively condescending attitude towards the field of archaeology. An entire field is dismissed in a single footnote... To ignore scholarly opponents is never a healthy strategy, and this unfortunately casts a dark shadow over what is nevertheless a very interesting book.
Christensen, Arne Søby (2002).Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths: Studies in a Migration Myth. Translated by Flegal, Heidi.Museum Tusculanum Press.ISBN 87-7289-7104.
