Shami Ghosh

Shami Ghosh
Shami Ghosh
Born	India
Academic background
Alma mater	King's College London; University of Toronto;
Academic work
Discipline	History;
Sub-discipline	Medieval studies
Institutions	University of Toronto;
Main interests	Germanic-speaking Europe; Marxist history;
Notable works	Writing The Barbarian Past(2015)

Shami Ghoshis anIndian-born historian who is Associate Professor at theCentre for Medieval Studiesand Department of History at theUniversity of Toronto.He researchesMarxist historyand the history ofGermanic-speaking Europe.

Biography[edit]

Shami Ghosh was born inIndia.^[1]He received hisBA(2003) inGermanatKing's College Londonin 2003, hisMA(2005) andPhD(2010) inMedieval Studiesfrom theUniversity of Toronto,and hisLMS(2016) from thePontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.^[2]Since 2016, Ghosh is Associate Professor at theCentre for Medieval Studiesand Department of History at the University of Toronto.

Theories[edit]

The research of Ghosh centers onMarxist historyand the history ofGermanic-speaking Europe.He has published the monographsKings' Sagas and Norwegian History(2011) andWriting The Barbarian Past(2015). In the latter monograph, Ghosh argues that the only thing earlyGermanic peopleshad in common was speakingGermanic languages,but that these linguistic similarities are insignificant. He denies that early Germanic peoples shared a commoncultureor identity, and believes that they only shared cultural similarities becausemutual intelligibilityfacilitated cultural exchanges between them.^[3]^[4]Ghosh advocates replacing the term "Germanic" with the term "barbarian".^[4]

Selected works[edit]

Kings’ Sagas and Norwegian History,2011
Writing the Barbarian Past: Studies in Early Medieval Historical Narrative,Brill’s Series on the Early Middle Ages, 24 (Leiden: Brill, 2016)

References[edit]

^"Shami Ghosh".University of Toronto.RetrievedSeptember 11,2020.
^"Curicculum Vitae".University of Toronto.RetrievedSeptember 11,2020.
^Cronan 2017,pp. 825–826. "A central component of his argument throughout the book is the denial of anything that approaches a common Germanic culture or identity... Ghosh repeatedly downplays the significance of the Germanic languages... He views language as merely the means through which oral narratives circulated from one people to another... To this reader, at least, it seems that he concedes much of what constituted what some of us would call a common Germanic culture."
^^a ^bNeidorf 2018,pp. 275–276. "The works studied in his monograph relate historical matter pertaining to peoples who spoke Germanic languages, and these works have traditionally been valued for their preservation of Germanic lore and legend, but Ghosh prefers to characterize the past represented in them as 'barbarian' rather than 'Germanic.'... Since these works are preserved in Germanic vernaculars, Ghosh entertains no doubts about their content deriving from Germanic oral traditions. Yet the anti-Germanic thread of his book is continued... [T]he fact that medieval Germanic peoples told stories about other, distant Germanic peoples does not, according to Ghosh, reflect identification with those peoples or any perception of ethnic similarity. It is solely a matter of linguistic convenience... Ghosh’s anti-Germanic arguments are often plausible... It is doubtful, however, whether his arguments will have much of an impact... One must wonder whether any adjectives used to describe cultural phenomena in medieval studies (e.g., Celtic, Romance, Byzantine, Carolingian) could withstand the kind of scrutiny that Ghosh has applied to the term 'Germanic.' The term will doubtless continue to be used because it is useful... If 'Germanic' is to be abandoned because Germanic tradition contains non-Germanic elements, then all of the other ethno-linguistic adjectives employed in medieval studies must surely be scrapped as well.... Despite Ghosh’s claims to the contrary, the negative fixation on the term 'Germanic' among medieval historians such as himself still appears to be 'a matter of the ideological baggage it carries'... Although Ghosh’s predilection for anti-Germanic readings occasionally entangles him in improbabilities,Writing the Barbarian Pastremains an excellent introduction to the principal early medieval sources for Germanic legend... "

Sources[edit]

Cronan, Dennis (2017)."Shami Ghosh, Writing the Barbarian Past".Speculum.92(3).University of Chicago Press:825–826.doi:10.1086/692443.
Neidorf, Leonard(2018)."Writing the Barbarian Past: Studies in Early Medieval Historical Narrative, by Shami Ghosh".ANQ.30(4).University of Kentucky:275–276.doi:10.1080/0895769X.2017.1314213.S2CID 164263378.

External links[edit]

Andrew GillettatAcademia.edu

[Toronto-1] "Shami Ghosh".University of Toronto.RetrievedSeptember 11,2020.

[CV-2] "Curicculum Vitae".University of Toronto.RetrievedSeptember 11,2020.

[Cronan-3] Cronan 2017,pp. 825–826. "A central component of his argument throughout the book is the denial of anything that approaches a common Germanic culture or identity... Ghosh repeatedly downplays the significance of the Germanic languages... He views language as merely the means through which oral narratives circulated from one people to another... To this reader, at least, it seems that he concedes much of what constituted what some of us would call a common Germanic culture."

[Neidorf-4] Neidorf 2018,pp. 275–276. "The works studied in his monograph relate historical matter pertaining to peoples who spoke Germanic languages, and these works have traditionally been valued for their preservation of Germanic lore and legend, but Ghosh prefers to characterize the past represented in them as 'barbarian' rather than 'Germanic.'... Since these works are preserved in Germanic vernaculars, Ghosh entertains no doubts about their content deriving from Germanic oral traditions. Yet the anti-Germanic thread of his book is continued... [T]he fact that medieval Germanic peoples told stories about other, distant Germanic peoples does not, according to Ghosh, reflect identification with those peoples or any perception of ethnic similarity. It is solely a matter of linguistic convenience... Ghosh’s anti-Germanic arguments are often plausible... It is doubtful, however, whether his arguments will have much of an impact... One must wonder whether any adjectives used to describe cultural phenomena in medieval studies (e.g., Celtic, Romance, Byzantine, Carolingian) could withstand the kind of scrutiny that Ghosh has applied to the term 'Germanic.' The term will doubtless continue to be used because it is useful... If 'Germanic' is to be abandoned because Germanic tradition contains non-Germanic elements, then all of the other ethno-linguistic adjectives employed in medieval studies must surely be scrapped as well.... Despite Ghosh’s claims to the contrary, the negative fixation on the term 'Germanic' among medieval historians such as himself still appears to be 'a matter of the ideological baggage it carries'... Although Ghosh’s predilection for anti-Germanic readings occasionally entangles him in improbabilities,Writing the Barbarian Pastremains an excellent introduction to the principal early medieval sources for Germanic legend... "

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]