because it must have been archaicised for prestige in the later part of the early medieval period (say from the 10th c to the 12th), but that seems to run counter to what I've learned about OIr as a historian. This causes me concern as I feel like it invalidates my sources
-
-
Show this thread
-
As I am an early medievalist working on the 7th to 9th c.
Show this thread -
Anyway, sorry to dump this question on you, it has just been something that weighs on my mind constantly, and as a PhD in the final year of my project I am worried that this will come back to haunt me.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hi, I would have to look at them to be able to give a specific judgment. Where are they published? In CGH? Generally speaking, I would say that people in the 10-12 cent would not have been able to artificially archaise in such a way that we wouldn't be able to notice it.
-
It also depends on what you mean by "archaic". In the context of genealogies, I would understand archaic as referring to the 7th cent or so. You might also ask
@cyocum, he works on the genealogies.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.