Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

False Scandinavian Origins

Expand Messages
  • x99lynx@aol.com
    george knysh wrote: In phase B the Wielbark culture expanded southward into areas previously occupied by the Przeworsk culture which it
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      george knysh <gknysh@y...> wrote:
      "In phase B the Wielbark culture expanded southward into areas previously
      occupied by the Przeworsk culture which it replaced there. This expansion
      occurred ca. 50 AD, and was accompanied by the appearance of indubitably
      Scandinavian elements within Wielbark, precisely in the newly occupied
      territory."

      This is simply not true. The "indubitably Scandinavian elements" in Wielbark
      are minuscule or non-existent. The archaeology supplies little or nothing to
      support the "Scandinavian origin" theory.

      There's a lot about this whole Goth story that is often repeated but when you
      look closer, they're often not correct or don't support what's being said.
      I'll try to answer these one at a time, so at least the readers on this list
      don't get the impression that this whole "Goth migration" thing doesn't have
      a lot of holes in it. It has a lot of holes in it. Here's one example.

      #1 - There is barely anything left of Kossina et al's self-proclaimed 'proof'
      that Wielbark originated in Scandinavia. Every "key elements" (except maybe
      one) has been definitively shown to be continental in origin - older,
      sometimes much, much older, than the earliest Scandinavian appearance.

      Peter Heather in "The Goths" summarizes the story of the downfall of the
      Scandinavian theory (pb 1998, pp. 13-14).

      However, Heather and others still think that one basic element is left in the
      rubble. These are certain burial practices involving stone circles, barrows,
      dolmens and stone-clad graves.

      This last Scandinavian element does not help George, however.

      Wielbark is well under way when the only "Scandinavian" element left shows
      up. These burial practices are only really found well AFTER George's 50 AD
      date.

      As Heather writes, the latest evidence "minimize the extent of any possible
      Scandinavian contribution to the Wielbark culture.... the stone circles do
      not appear among the earliest Wielbark cemeteries. These can be dated B1b
      (early to mid-first century AD), while stone circles are found only in the
      period B2 (c. AD 100 or later.) If the stone circles do reflect a
      Scandinavian involvement in Wielbark culture, it was not in their creation."
      - Heather, p. 25.

      The evidence is actually even smaller than Heather reports. There are whole
      sections of Wielbark in which circles and barrow graves essentially NEVER
      appear, e.g., in the region of Greater Poland. (See, e.g., Tadeusz
      Makiewicz's web page on "Goths in Greater Poland" - "We do not, however, have
      any evidence of stone circles or cobble-clad graves from Greater Poland,
      barrow burials being a rarity - only three having been recorded in the
      peripheral zone of this region.")

      Also, "British school" archaeologists, like Alasdair Whittle, have questioned
      how stone circles, dolmens and barrow graves could possibly establish a
      Scandinavian origin when highly similar practices are known to have been
      widespread and continued into the iron-age in both western and southern
      Europe. This suggests that they did not originate in Scandinavia. It
      appears for example that nearly identical burials were the common predecessor
      to both Celtic and early Greek circular temples. And since such practices in
      general represent the transfer of religious beliefs, they do not necessarily
      support the idea of a migration.

      The first appearance of Christian graves in Scandinavia, for example,
      certainly could not support the claim of a mass migration from the south.
      How can some earlier grave types possibly prove a migration from the north?

      In any case, there are archaeologists who would see no proof at all of
      Scandinavian origins or even migration in the stone circles, etc.

      Finally, Heather mentions another problem with the meager Scandinavian
      evidence, perhaps from a linguistic point of view. The stone circles in
      Scandinavia apparently are never found in the region associated with the
      ancient "Goutai" or "Gutae." (p. 27)

      BTW, I should note that I am using Peter Heather because he is a major
      authority and advocate for identifying Wielbark with the Goths.

      And all he can say is "from an archaeological evidence, the most that can be
      claimed is that a few 'Gothic' aristocratic clans migrated from Scandinavia
      to northern Poland." (p. 26) Needless to say, from a truly objective point
      of view, I think he is going overboard. At best what can be claimed is that
      an imported burial custom appeared in Scandinavia and VERY soon after in
      Northern Poland. How that custom arrived at either place has not been
      adequately investigated.

      #2 - What Heather does not mention is that the reversal of Kossina's paradigm
      raises a completely different set of issues. Issues that calls for a
      parallel reversal in the old thinking about where the "Goths" came from.
      What about all those other elements? What do they NOW prove, since they are
      no longer Scandinavian?

      Most of Kossina's elements not only did not originate in Scandinavia, they
      also did not originate in north western Europe. Most also did not originate
      in southwestern Europe. Most can be identified in their earliest form with
      the eastern Danube, the Balkans and possibly the Ukraine.

      If these erroneously identified "Scandinavian" elements proved in everyone's
      mind as late as 1955 that the Goths came from Scandinavia, then what do they
      prove now that their origins have been correctly identified?

      Why don't the same elements "prove" where the Goths came from now? Even
      though it is no longer Scandinavia? Or does this evidence work only in one
      direction? Or is it only good if it supports one theory, but not another?

      I guess the answer is that many of us don't want to believe that the Goth's
      "migration" may have been essentially back to where they originally came
      from. Kossina's "elements of Gotho-Gepidian culture" however NOW seem to
      say that that is exactly what may have happened. What's proof for the goose
      should be proof for the gander.

      Another corrolary question is: Since Kossina's key Gothic elements did not
      come from Scandinavia, how did they reach Scandinavia or, for that matter,
      Poland?

      #3 - George wrote: "In phase B the Wielbark culture expanded southward into
      areas previously occupied by the Przeworsk culture which it replaced there."

      Just want to point out that, if you go by the maps in Heather (pp 36-37),
      Przeworsk is also doing some serious expanding. In fact, the two cultures
      appear to go southeastwards pretty much parallel to each other. They seem to
      be headed in the same direction, side by side. And Przeworsk appears to
      reach further south and seems to cover a good deal more territory.

      Which makes me again wonder why anyone would connect this culture with what
      Tacitus tells us was an assumed name for some federation of tribes -
      "Vandal." Ptolemy certainly doesn't put them where Przeworsk is at the time.

      If one is going to rely on Tacitus and Ptolemy to prove where the Goths were,
      I would think one would ALSO have to account for the "major" tribal group who
      they both say are in the area - the Venethi. Or are we saying here that
      Ptolemy absolutely correctly identified one of the many "minor" tribes
      (Gythones) but made up the "major" one, mistakenly locating the Venethi right
      where Wielbark would have first met Przeworsk?

      Steve Long


      ...........................................................................
    • george knysh
      ... *****GK: First of all, if Steve had bothered to read earlier posts where I uttered an opinion about Gothic origins he would realize that I am not a
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 25, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- x99lynx@... wrote:
        > george knysh <gknysh@y...> wrote:
        > "In phase C the Wielbark culture expanded southward
        > into areas previously
        > occupied by the Przeworsk culture which it replaced
        > there. This expansion
        > occurred ca. 50 AD, and was accompanied by the
        > appearance of indubitably
        > Scandinavian elements within Wielbark, precisely in
        > the newly occupied
        > territory."
        >
        > This is simply not true. The "indubitably
        > Scandinavian elements" in Wielbark
        > are minuscule or non-existent. The archaeology
        > supplies little or nothing to
        > support the "Scandinavian origin" theory.

        *****GK: First of all, if Steve had bothered to read
        earlier posts where I uttered an opinion about Gothic
        origins he would realize that I am not a supporter of
        the "mass migration from Scandinavia" theory. What I
        wrote above is perfectly in synch with the opinion of
        a majority of contemporary Polish field
        archaeologists, who see Wielbark as essentially
        autochtonous, but with some Scandinavian elements
        interspersed in various localities at various times.
        This view is also supported by Ukrainian
        archaeologists with respect to Wielbark sites on the
        territory of Ukraine. So much of the remainder of
        Steve's latest message is beside the point. In the
        second place I am talking about the territory of
        Wielbark phase C as per the map of Wolongiewicz, the
        best field specialist on Wielbark (now deceased), as
        reported in Anders Kaliff's excellent recent Swedish
        study (but written in English) "Gothic Connections",
        Uppsala 2001, p. 27.******

        > (SL)Peter Heather in "The Goths" summarizes the
        story of
        > the downfall of the
        > Scandinavian theory (pb 1998, pp. 13-14).
        >
        > However, Heather and others still think that one
        > basic element is left in the
        > rubble. These are certain burial practices
        > involving stone circles, barrows,
        > dolmens and stone-clad graves.

        ****GK: Ukrainian and Soviet archaeologists also
        pointed to certain elements in the inventories of the
        internal grave residues of Wielbark in Ukraine as
        closely associated with Scandinavian practice. Cf. Y.
        Kukharenko's study of the Brest Wielbark cemetery
        (published in Moscow in 1980)******

        >SL) (See, e.g., Tadeusz
        > Makiewicz's web page on "Goths in Greater Poland" -
        > "We do not, however, have
        > any evidence of stone circles or cobble-clad graves
        > from Greater Poland,
        > barrow burials being a rarity - only three having
        > been recorded in the
        > peripheral zone of this region.")

        ******GK: Makiewicz is nevertheless agreeable to a
        Scandinavian element being present in Poland's
        Wielbark. Let me remind Steve of an elementary fact of
        historical hermeneutics. In order for the
        "Scandinavian origin" theory reported by Jordanes to
        have credibility, all that is required is for a small
        number of upper class people to have migrated into
        Poland or Ukraine at some point, and for their family
        or group traditions to have subsequently been foisted
        upon the entire population labeled "Gothic". There is
        sufficient archaeological evidence extant to confirm
        this scenario. So even if the culture was
        fundamentally autochtonous, it could still be
        represented as "Scandinavian" in later writings. We
        have examples of this approach in the history of
        other peoples.*******

        (SL) George wrote: "In phase C the Wielbark culture
        > expanded southward into
        > areas previously occupied by the Przeworsk culture
        > which it replaced there."

        ****GK: See above, A. Kaliff p. 27. Phase C is still
        fundamentally in northern Poland West of the
        Vistula...*****
        >
        >(SL) Just want to point out that, if you go by the
        maps
        > in Heather (pp 36-37),
        > Przeworsk is also doing some serious expanding. In
        > fact, the two cultures
        > appear to go southeastwards pretty much parallel to
        > each other. They seem be headed in the same
        direction, side by side. And Przeworsk appears to
        reach further south and seems to cover a good deal
        more territory.

        Which makes me again wonder why anyone would connect
        this culture with what
        Tacitus tells us was an assumed name for some
        federation of tribes -
        "Vandal." Ptolemy certainly doesn't put them where
        Przeworsk is at the time.

        *****GK: As we know there were many Vandalic groups.
        The spread of Przeworsk to the east and south has been
        studied very carefully by Ukrainian archaeology. They
        note the appearance of Przeworsk "warrior graves"
        north of the Dnister in Ukrainian Galicia in the last
        decades of the 2nd and in the first decades of the 3rd
        century. This is totally in line with Cassius Dio's
        report that in the 170's the Asding Vandals conquered
        the territory of the Kostoboki. The latter is
        associated with the area of the Lypytska Dacian
        culture and the mixed Zubrytska culture.== We also
        know that many Przeworsk elements were incorporated
        into the later phases of Wielbark, which supports
        Jordanes' statement about the territorial contiguity
        and wars between Goths and Vandals.******

        (SL)If one is going to rely on Tacitus and Ptolemy to
        prove where the Goths were,
        I would think one would ALSO have to account for the
        "major" tribal group who
        they both say are in the area - the Venethi. Or are
        we saying here that
        Ptolemy absolutely correctly identified one of the
        many "minor" tribes
        (Gythones) but made up the "major" one, mistakenly
        locating the Venethi right
        where Wielbark would have first met Przeworsk?

        ******GK: I have been studying this problem for a long
        time. Since Ptolemy's localization of the
        Venethi/Venedi is very different from that of Pliny
        and Tacitus, I have come to the conclusion that in
        this particular context he garbled matters by
        utilizing an early source which reflected the
        situation of the 4th/3rd c. BC rather than that of the
        2nd c. AD. Ptolemy had a tendency to do this with
        other material: e.g. he places the Iazygi north of the
        Sea of Azov (true for the late 3rd c. BC, false for
        the 2nd c. AD-- by then they had migrated to Hungary);
        he places the Burgundians both east and west of the
        Vistula (again a probably uncoordinated utilization of
        various sources) et sim. Ptolemy is a very valuable
        source, but he needs to be properly interpreted in
        those peculiar contexts.******




        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards�
        http://movies.yahoo.com/
      • tgpedersen
        According to Albrectsen, the finds in Fyn and other parts of Denmark point to a connection towards Western Germania in the period 0 - 200 CE, then (200-400 CE)
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 25, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          According to Albrectsen, the finds in Fyn and other parts of Denmark
          point to a connection towards Western Germania in the period 0 - 200
          CE, then (200-400 CE) towards the Black Sea region. Perhaps what
          happened was that the trade routes in that direction were slowly
          opened again, in whatever way?

          I noticed BTW that the Germanic-speaking area at the time corresponds
          in extent to the later Poland-Lithuania. Since I suspect that trade
          routes and transport are important in defining the area that a
          linguistic group choose to settle in, could I ask Piotr (as everybody
          does!) to tell us some of what he might know of production and
          transport routes in Poland-Lithuania, especially transport on water
          and the problem of transshipment between the Baltic and the Black Sea
          river systems? All I know is anecdotal information that the roads
          were not too good? Thank you in advance?

          Torsten
        • tgpedersen
          According to Albrectsen, the finds in Fyn and other parts of Denmark point to a connection towards Western Germania in the period 0 - 200 CE, then (200-400 CE)
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 25, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            According to Albrectsen, the finds in Fyn and other parts of Denmark
            point to a connection towards Western Germania in the period 0 - 200
            CE, then (200-400 CE) towards the Black Sea region. Perhaps what
            happened was that the trade routes in that direction were slowly
            opened again, in whatever way?

            I noticed BTW that the Germanic-speaking area at the time corresponds
            in extent to the later Poland-Lithuania. Since I suspect that trade
            routes and transport are important in defining the area that a
            linguistic group choose to settle in, could I ask Piotr (as everybody
            does!) to tell us some of what he might know of production and
            transport routes in Poland-Lithuania, especially transport on water
            and the problem of transshipment between the Baltic and the Black Sea
            river systems? All I know is anecdotal information that the roads
            were not too good? Thank you in advance?

            Torsten
          • george knysh
            ... ******GK: There is obviously no mystery about the fact that the major (though not the only) link between Baltic and Black Seas in the period in question
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 25, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
              >
              > According to Albrectsen, the finds in Fyn and other
              > parts of Denmark
              > point to a connection towards Western Germania in
              > the period 0 - 200
              > CE, then (200-400 CE) towards the Black Sea region.
              > Perhaps what
              > happened was that the trade routes in that direction
              > were slowly
              > opened again, in whatever way?

              ******GK: There is obviously no mystery about the fact
              that the major (though not the only) link between
              Baltic and Black Seas in the period in question
              (200-400 AD) followed what we might call the
              "Gotho-Vandalic highway"): Vistula-> Bug/h/ -> Bog/h/.
              This is borne out not only by the archaeology of
              Prezeworsk/Wielbark, but also (unless I am wrong on
              this) by the etymology of the river names Bug/Bog,
              which, it would seem, is Germanic. Later on, (again
              there were other simultaneously functioning trade
              routes) the major "highway" from Baltic to Black Sea
              became the "Route from the Varangians to the
              Greeks".*****


              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards�
              http://movies.yahoo.com/
            • x99lynx@aol.com
              ... George, not only did you change your own quote, but you changed my quote of your quote!!! Is this standard procedure? The switch from B to C does not help
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 25, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In cybalist@y..., george knysh <gknysh@y...> wrote:
                > > "In phase C the Wielbark culture expanded southward
                > > into areas previously
                > > occupied by the Przeworsk culture which it replaced
                > > there. This expansion
                > > occurred ca. 50 AD,...

                But earlier George wrote:
                > george knysh <gknysh@y...> wrote:
                > "In phase B the Wielbark culture expanded southward into areas previously
                > occupied by the Przeworsk culture which it replaced there. This expansion
                > occurred ca. 50 AD,and was accompanied by the appearance of indubitably
                > Scandinavian elements within Wielbark,...

                George, not only did you change your own quote, but you changed my quote of
                your quote!!! Is this standard procedure?

                The switch from B to C does not help anyway. The Scandinavian element
                simply arrives too late. Wielbark has originated and expanded before the
                stone circles, etc., show up in a limited part of Wielbark. (George also
                wrote: "I am talking about the territory of
                Wielbark phase C as per the map of Wolongiewicz,..." The name is Wolagiewicz
                and it's his map updated by Scukin (accents omitted) that was used in
                Heather.)

                George also wrote:
                "What I wrote above is perfectly in synch with the opinion of a majority of
                contemporary Polish field archaeologists, who see Wielbark as essentially
                autochtonous,.... So much of the remainder of Steve's latest message is
                beside the point."

                Now, George. That's not a very nice way to sidestep my main argument. What
                those archaeologists say did NOT answer my question.

                Up until the 1950's, archaeologists following Kossina, found all kinds of
                Scandinavian origin evidence in Wielbark. It was bought wholesale and is
                STILL being repeated in encyclopedias, histories and on this list.

                Well, it turns out all that evidence is NOT Scandinavian. Instead NOW almost
                all of that "origin" evidence says Wielbark was NOT Scandinavian. So what do
                Polish (and of course Ukrainian) archaeologists say that all that evidence
                NOW says.

                George says those archaeologist now see "Wielbark as essentially
                autochtonous,..." But that would mean, prima facie, junking all the old
                evidence that once proved Wielbark was Scandinavian. BECAUSE that evidence
                does not show local origin, either.

                I have no problem with Polish archaeologists junking Kossina. But perhaps
                the next and better step is to consider junking Jordanes. After all,
                Kossina's work on Gothic origins was what supposedly confirmed Jordanes.
                Consider Jordanes unconfirmed.

                The evidence Kossina used is still there, it just doesn't say Scandinavian.
                And it doesn't say "autochtonous" either.

                This is important. Kossina's theory was NOT disproved by showing his
                "Gotho-Gepidian" elements were autochtonous.

                They were disproved by showing that those elements originated elsewhere.
                And, of Kossina's seven elements listed and cited by Heather, six were shown
                to have already existed along the Danube, in the Balkans and arguably in the
                Ukraine.

                If everyone once said Wielbark is of Scandinavian origin based on this
                evidence, then it matters that the very same evidence NOW says Wielbark was
                of Danubian origin. Unless the evidence never really counted in the first
                place. (But that sounds like a bias is in operation, doesn't it?)

                As far as saying that later Scandinavians were some kind of aristocratic
                elite among the Wielbark, I don't see how that makes any sense, either.
                Polish archaeologists agree there were very few of them. And I've seen
                nothing archaeologically that says they were elite. That's just Jordanes and
                Kossina again.

                George also brings up "Makiewicz is nevertheless agreeable to a
                Scandinavian element being present in Poland's Wielbark. Let me remind Steve
                of an elementary fact of historical hermeneutics. In order for the
                "Scandinavian origin" theory reported by Jordanes to have credibility, all
                that is required is for a small number of upper class people to have migrated
                into Poland or Ukraine at some point,..."

                Those are very minimum requirements and not scientific at all. We would
                expect some Scandinavian influence archaeologically even if Jordanes was
                totally wrong. In fact, one could argue that most of Kossina's elements
                actually traveled to Scandinavia via Wielbark - the other way around.
                Perhaps Wielbark elite migrated to Scandinavia.

                So none of this says in any way that Jordanes is historically accurate. All
                kinds of convoluted hermeneutics can and has supported Jordanes. But all the
                archaeology says is that maybe some Wielbarkians adopted what might have been
                SOME - not all - Swedish religious practices - and again they might not even
                have been Scandinavian in origin.

                But, in terms of credibility, Jordanes' origin theory is that it happened
                before 1000 BC. And its supposed to account for the Gothic nation, including
                Ulfila's poor folk and not just an Odin-style ruling family.

                We do have evidence of a mass migration out of Scandinavia or anywhere along
                the Baltic at the time of Wielbark. But there was one that happened about
                250 BC. That works with my theory about how the East Germanic languages got
                to the eastern Danube and the Ukraine.

                The fact is, if we are not going to be conveniently selective about Jordanes'
                origin story, we should say it is fabricated myth. The Romans and Greeks had
                come to the conclusion that anyone who showed up speaking German must have
                come from the north 600 years before Jordanes, thanks to the Cimbri and
                Bastarnae. That Jordanes/Cassiodorus could come up with the Goths coming
                from Ptolemy's Scandinavian Goutai-land to satisfy an origin myth did not
                take a lot of invention.

                Again, that an area just south of Scandinavia should show some incidental
                Scandinavian influence does not constitute proof. It is rather to be
                expected, even if Jordanes' story is completely false.

                Piotr writes in another post, for example:
                "My personal opinion is that the East Germanic languages were essentially
                "continental", and that some immigrant groups of Scandinavian origin (the
                Amal elite?) mingled with the local populations, transforming them culturally
                and politically (and deepening the split between the Wielbark and Przeworsk
                cultures), but not linguistically."

                Just in terms of that one idea - that "some immigrant groups of Scandinavian
                origin (the Amal elite?) mingled with the local populations,
                transforming them culturally and politically" - what is the evidence for
                that? What was particularly Scandinavian about later Wielbark politics? Or
                Gothic culture or politics for that matter?

                I know that Piotr said this was a personal opinion, but his opinion carries a
                lot of weight around here. So I'm asking if that opinion has room for other
                possibilities.

                If the Eastern Germanic of the 4th Century AD Goths was indeed continental in
                origin, wouldn't this be a better starting point in looking for the origins
                than an Amal elite? If the Amal did not speak East Germanic, did the
                underclass "Rugi" or "Vandals?" Did the Vandals speak East Germanic?

                Let's say they did. Were they the ones - as Wielbark - that first brought
                East Germanic down to the Ukraine and the Danube? Well, there was a big
                healthy expanse of Germanic speakers already down there. Did they speak East
                Germanic? And why do we think that their culture - long in contact with
                Greeks and the Danube - could not account for the politics and the culture of
                the Goths? Including those things that Wielbark showed little evidence of -
                like Gothic iron technology.

                So, did Ulfila's Goths need Wielbark to bring them the East Germanic they
                spoke? Or was it already there, being spoken by a group whom Strabo and
                Ptolemy and others give a large geographic presence to (compared to other
                tribes), in an area very congruent to that of the early Goths. Does it make
                more sense that East Germanic separated and developed a sort distance from
                Germany and Scandinavia. Or that it started its differentiation among the
                Bastarnae and Skiri in the south?

                If East Germanic developed in the south and then expanded back north, it
                might suggest that how Ptolemy's Gythones could speak East Germanic. And
                maybe it could account for a different origin of the Goths.

                Not an origin that a blatant apologist for later, root-seeking Gothic
                aristocrats like Cassiodorus or his summarizer Jordanes would be likely to
                admit.

                Steve Long



                ................................
              • george knysh
                ... *****GK: The original B was an error for C . In the Wolongiewicz/Kaliff map (which I referred to) A+B stands for the Pomeranian coast and the basin of
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 25, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- x99lynx@... wrote:
                  > --- In cybalist@y..., george knysh <gknysh@y...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > > "In phase C the Wielbark culture expanded
                  > southward
                  > > > into areas previously
                  > > > occupied by the Przeworsk culture which it
                  > replaced
                  > > > there. This expansion
                  > > > occurred ca. 50 AD,...
                  >
                  > But earlier George wrote:
                  > > george knysh <gknysh@y...> wrote:
                  > > "In phase B the Wielbark culture expanded
                  > southward into areas previously
                  > > occupied by the Przeworsk culture which it
                  > replaced there. This expansion
                  > > occurred ca. 50 AD,and was accompanied by the
                  > appearance of indubitably
                  > > Scandinavian elements within Wielbark,...
                  >
                  > George, not only did you change your own quote, but
                  > you changed my quote of
                  > your quote!!! Is this standard procedure?

                  *****GK: The original "B" was an error for "C". In the
                  Wolongiewicz/Kaliff map (which I referred to) A+B
                  stands for the Pomeranian coast and the basin of the
                  Lower Vistula, and C stands for the earlier Przeworsk
                  area to the south of B and west of A. There's no need
                  to be disingenuous in your argumentation. But since
                  you're not familiar with this map, I guess you
                  couldn't point out that in fact there are no
                  "Scandinavian" elements at all in the A+B phase of
                  Wielbark.*****
                  >
                  > (SL)The switch from B to C does not help anyway.
                  The
                  > Scandinavian element
                  > simply arrives too late. Wielbark has originated
                  > and expanded before the
                  > stone circles, etc., show up in a limited part of
                  > Wielbark.

                  *****GK: You seem to be talking to yourself here. I
                  won't bother repeating after this one last time that I
                  am not a proponent of some "mass migration" of Goths
                  from Scandinavia to Poland. Of course I can't stop you
                  from distorting this over and over to make me say what
                  I am not saying. But that is your problem not mine.All
                  that I have argued and continue to maintain is that
                  there are sufficient "Scandinavian" elements in
                  certain phases of developing Wielbark to justify and
                  explain the eventual rise of a theory (based on the
                  traditions of certain ruling families) contending that
                  the Goths all came from Scandinavia. We no longer
                  accept this theory, even if Jordanes and his
                  contemporaries did, and after them many generations of
                  readers and scholars.******

                  (SL)(George also
                  > wrote: "I am talking about the territory of
                  > Wielbark phase C as per the map of Wolongiewicz,..."
                  > The name is Wolagiewicz
                  > and it's his map updated by Scukin (accents omitted)
                  > that was used in
                  > Heather.)

                  *****GK: I can't help it of you don't know how to
                  pronounce the name of the archaeologist in question.
                  It's not Wolagiewicz because the "a" has the little
                  tail indicating that it stands for "on". Since I don't
                  have this special sign I adopt the phonetic
                  spelling.*****
                  >
                  >(SL) George also wrote:
                  > "What I wrote above is perfectly in synch with the
                  > opinion of a majority of
                  > contemporary Polish field archaeologists, who see
                  > Wielbark as essentially
                  > autochtonous,.... So much of the remainder of
                  > Steve's latest message is
                  > beside the point."
                  >
                  >(S.L) Now, George. That's not a very nice way to
                  sidestep
                  > my main argument. What
                  > those archaeologists say did NOT answer my question.

                  ******GK: Your main argument was that I accepted the
                  theory that the Goths mass migrated from Scandinavia.
                  Since I do not there was little incentive to discuss
                  the issue.*****

                  >(SL) The evidence Kossina used is still there, it
                  just
                  > doesn't say Scandinavian.
                  > And it doesn't say "autochtonous" either.

                  *****GK: Well that is what it says to professional
                  field archaeologists. Until they say otherwise that's
                  the ball game I'm afraid. You may not like it. It may
                  interfere woth some pet theory of yours. But your
                  authority is clearly insufficient to overturn the
                  consensus of professionals.*****

                  >(SL) As far as saying that later Scandinavians were
                  some
                  > kind of aristocratic
                  > elite among the Wielbark, I don't see how that makes
                  > any sense, either.
                  > Polish archaeologists agree there were very few of
                  > them. And I've seen
                  > nothing archaeologically that says they were elite.
                  > That's just Jordanes and
                  > Kossina again.

                  *****GK: I see nothing objectionable in such a
                  reinterpretation of Jordanes. There is archaeological
                  support and no archaeological evidence to the
                  contrary.******

                  > But, in terms of credibility, Jordanes' origin
                  > theory is that it happened
                  > before 1000 BC. And its supposed to account for the
                  > Gothic nation, including
                  > Ulfila's poor folk and not just an Odin-style ruling
                  > family.

                  *****GK: The ancient date is of course untenable, and
                  due to Jordanes/Cassiodorus incorporation of
                  non-Gothic material (Getan and Scythian) into Gothic
                  history. BTW how many people were two ships supposed
                  to hold (:=))??? Perhaps... the Amali and Balti and
                  their households? Note that this is actually far more
                  credible than the Biblical account of Israel's
                  migration from Egypt to the Holy Land... Or the coming
                  of "Polanian" Slavs to the hills of Kyiv...******
                  >
                  >(SL) We do have evidence of a mass migration out of
                  > Scandinavia or anywhere along
                  > the Baltic at the time of Wielbark. But there was
                  > one that happened about
                  > 250 BC. That works with my theory about how the
                  > East Germanic languages got
                  > to the eastern Danube and the Ukraine.

                  *****GK: BTW it's no longer "the" Ukraine, but just
                  plain and simple "Ukraine". You first sentence is
                  confusing. But you's better correct it yourself rather
                  than accuse me again of tampering with the evidence if
                  I make any clarifying adjustments. Are you talking
                  about the Bastarnae? If you are, and if Shchukin is
                  your authority, keep in mind that very few if any
                  archaeologists and historians in the FSU accept his
                  idiosyncratic interpretations. The man sees
                  "Bastarnae" everywhere.******

                  General Note: For those who are confused by Steve
                  Long's hop skip and jump method of argumentation,
                  viz., completely ignoring certain points (such as my
                  comprehensive response to his demand that evidence be
                  provided that Goths and Getae appeared simultaneously
                  as different categories in classical sources), raising
                  new issues in mid-stream, red herrings, etc., please
                  be advised that this is nothing new. Have a look at
                  message 280 on the European Archaeology list (November
                  29 2000). Let's hope we're not in for more of the same
                  here...



                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards�
                  http://movies.yahoo.com/
                • Piotr Gasiorowski
                  ... From: x99lynx@aol.com To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 7:53 PM Subject: [tied] Re: False Scandinavian Origins ... Why not? as long
                  Message 8 of 13 , Mar 25, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 7:53 PM
                    Subject: [tied] Re: False Scandinavian Origins

                    > ... I know that Piotr said this was a personal opinion, but his opinion carries a lot of weight around here.  So I'm asking if that opinion has room for other possibilities.
                     
                    Why not? as long as the narrative remains linguistically convincing (I can't help seeing things from a linguist's perspective). For one thing, the Germanic branch is rather close-knit in terms of common innovations, so there must have been a rather long period when the Germanic-speaking tribes lived sufficiently close to one another for shared changes like Grimm's Law and Verner's Law (and several lesser Laws) to spread easily. The geographical range of the Jastorf culture seems to have been just the right size; at a later date, it was the focal area of Northwest Germanic innovations in which Gothic no longer participated. By that time, the rest of the Germani had already dispersed as far south and east as the Danube and the Black Sea coast, and their cultures had been thoroughly transformed. How they interacted with the "Veneti", the Celts, etc., are separate issues, too complicated to be discussed in a single posting.
                     
                    > If the Eastern Germanic of the 4th Century AD Goths was indeed continental in origin, wouldn't this be a better starting point in looking for the origins than an Amal elite?   If the Amal did not speak East Germanic, did the underclass "Rugi" or "Vandals?"  Did the Vandals speak East Germanic? ...
                     
                    The putative Scandinavian elite had little to do with the origins of the Gothic _language_, which I presume would have been the same with or without the Amals. IMO, East Germanic is not a valid genetic grouping, being characterised as the "basal" group of Germanic dialects that did not undergo the characteristic Northwest Germanic developments (but not sharing any unique innovations of their own). The only satisfactorily documented EG language is of course Gothic, but it stands to reason that any early Germanic language that was sufficiently distant from the NWG core area about AD 1 is EG by virtue of not being classifiable as NWG. That probably includes the language(s) of the Vandals and a fortiori those of the Sciri and the Bastarnae. I wouldn't swear that the last-mentioned languages were "fully Germanic" (rather than "para-Germanic") in the sense of having undergone all the diagnostically Germanic sound changes -- the onomastics evidence is not quite conclusive. Most of the Vandalic ethnonyms, on the other hand, are echt Germanic; so is Gothic as we know it.
                     
                    Piotr
                     
                  • Tore Gannholm
                    ... Steve, How does your map look like? Scandinavia is a wide conception. Jordanes never spoke about Scandinavia. He spoke about Skandza which everything
                    Message 9 of 13 , Mar 25, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      [tied] Re: False Scandinavian Origins

                      The switch from B to C does not help anyway.   The Scandinavian element
                      simply arrives too late.  Wielbark has originated and expanded before the
                      stone circles, etc., show up in a limited part of Wielbark. (George also
                      wrote: "I am talking about the territory of
                      Wielbark phase C as per the map of Wolongiewicz,..."  The name is Wolagiewicz
                      and it's his map updated by Scukin (accents omitted) that was used in
                      Heather.)

                      George also wrote:
                      "What I wrote above is perfectly in synch with the opinion of a majority of
                      contemporary Polish field archaeologists, who see Wielbark as essentially
                      autochtonous,....  So much of the remainder of Steve's latest message is
                      beside the point."

                      Now, George.  That's not a very nice way to sidestep my main argument.  What
                      those archaeologists say did NOT answer my question.

                      Up until the 1950's, archaeologists following Kossina, found all kinds of
                      Scandinavian origin evidence in Wielbark.  It was bought wholesale and is
                      STILL being repeated in encyclopedias, histories and on this list. 

                      Well, it turns out all that evidence is NOT Scandinavian.  Instead NOW almost
                      all of that "origin" evidence says Wielbark was NOT Scandinavian.  So what do
                      Polish (and of course Ukrainian) archaeologists say that all that evidence
                      NOW says.

                      George says those archaeologist now see "Wielbark as essentially
                      autochtonous,..." But that would mean, prima facie, junking all the old
                      evidence that once proved Wielbark was Scandinavian.  BECAUSE that evidence
                      does not show local origin, either.

                      I have no problem with Polish archaeologists junking Kossina.  But perhaps
                      the next and better step is to consider junking Jordanes.  After all,
                      Kossina's work on Gothic origins was what supposedly confirmed Jordanes. 
                      Consider Jordanes unconfirmed.

                      The evidence Kossina used is still there, it just doesn't say Scandinavian. 
                      And it doesn't say "autochtonous" either.

                      This is important.  Kossina's theory was NOT disproved by showing his
                      "Gotho-Gepidian" elements were autochtonous.

                      They were disproved by showing that those elements originated elsewhere. 
                      And, of Kossina's seven elements listed and cited by Heather, six were shown
                      to have already existed along the Danube, in the Balkans and arguably in the
                      Ukraine.

                      If everyone once said Wielbark is of Scandinavian origin based on this
                      evidence, then it matters that the very same evidence NOW says Wielbark was
                      of Danubian origin.  Unless the evidence never really counted in the first
                      place.  (But that sounds like a bias is in operation, doesn't it?)

                      As far as saying that later Scandinavians were some kind of aristocratic
                      elite among the Wielbark, I don't see how that makes any sense, either. 
                      Polish archaeologists agree there were very few of them.  And I've seen
                      nothing archaeologically that says they were elite.  That's just Jordanes and
                      Kossina again.

                      George also brings up "Makiewicz is nevertheless agreeable to a
                      Scandinavian element being present in Poland's Wielbark. Let me remind Steve
                      of an elementary fact of historical hermeneutics. In order for the
                      "Scandinavian origin" theory reported by Jordanes to have credibility, all
                      that is required is for a small number of upper class people to have migrated
                      into Poland or Ukraine at some point,..."

                      Those are very minimum requirements and not scientific at all.  We would
                      expect some Scandinavian influence archaeologically even if Jordanes was
                      totally wrong.  In fact, one could argue that most of Kossina's elements
                      actually traveled to Scandinavia via Wielbark - the other way around. 
                      Perhaps Wielbark elite migrated to Scandinavia.


                      Steve,
                      How does your map look like?
                      Scandinavia is a wide conception. Jordanes never spoke about Scandinavia. He spoke about Skandza which everything points to be Gotland. I am not sure if you know what Gotland is. It is not Skandinavia! It is Gotland, the large island in the Baltic, with its own culture and history. It was the commercial and cultural center in the Baltic for 2000 years.
                      Before the Wielbark culture many signs say it was a common culture in the Baltic with Gotland,coastal Poland and some coastal areas in Sweden. The Gotlanders as clever merchants were probably involved in the ember trade. The riches found in the Gotlandic soil outweighs all other areas. There are proof of Gotlandic trading stations on the east coast of the Baltic during Bronze age.

                      Have you read Anders Kaliff's Gothic connections.

                      http://www.stavgard.com/Gothic-L/gothicconnectio_/default.htm
                       


                      So none of this says in any way that Jordanes is historically accurate.  All
                      kinds of convoluted hermeneutics can and has supported Jordanes.  But all the
                      archaeology says is that maybe some Wielbarkians adopted what might have been
                      SOME - not all - Swedish religious practices - and again they might not even
                      have been Scandinavian in origin. 

                      But, in terms of credibility, Jordanes' origin theory is that it happened
                      before 1000 BC.  And its supposed to account for the Gothic nation, including
                      Ulfila's poor folk and not just an Odin-style ruling family.

                      We do have evidence of a mass migration out of Scandinavia or anywhere along
                      the Baltic at the time of Wielbark.   But there was one that happened about
                      250 BC. 


                      No this is not from Scandinavia. It is from Gotland.

                      We have earlier discussed this on Gothic-L and Swedish smaller groups of immigrants to Poland comes as you very well point out after the forming of the Wielbark.

                      Please don't confuse Gotland with Sweden.

                      Tore


                      -- 
                      
                    • guto rhys
                      In a recent reply to a question I posed concerning the death of continental Celtic Piotr mentioned that there was toponymic evidence from Switzerland
                      Message 10 of 13 , Mar 26, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment

                        In a recent reply to a question I posed concerning the death of continental Celtic Piotr mentioned that there was toponymic evidence from Switzerland suggesting that the language may have survived there to a comparatively late period (post-Roman?). Does anyone know where I could get hold of the relevant article/book/research paper?

                        Guto



                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards�
                      • Tore Gannholm
                        ... Torsten, Just read the Gotlandic history. The Gotlanders used these rivers: Visla, Bug That is the way Krampmacken was intended to sail but was stopped
                        Message 11 of 13 , Mar 28, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Re: [tied] False Scandinavian Origins
                          According to Albrectsen, the finds in Fyn and other parts of Denmark
                          point to a connection towards Western Germania in the period 0 - 200
                          CE, then (200-400 CE) towards the Black Sea region. Perhaps what
                          happened was that the trade routes in that direction were slowly
                          opened again, in whatever way?

                          I noticed BTW that the Germanic-speaking area at the time corresponds
                          in extent to the later Poland-Lithuania. Since I suspect that trade
                          routes and transport are important in defining the area that a
                          linguistic group choose to settle in, could I ask Piotr (as everybody
                          does!) to tell us some of what he might know of production and
                          transport routes in Poland-Lithuania, especially transport on water
                          and the problem of transshipment between the Baltic and the Black Sea
                          river systems? All I know is anecdotal information that the roads
                          were not too good? Thank you in advance?

                          Torsten

                          Torsten,
                          Just read the Gotlandic history. The Gotlanders used these rivers: Visla, Bug

                          That is the way "Krampmacken" was intended to sail but was stopped at the than Sovjet border. Instead they followed Visla all the way and went over to Donau.

                          One of the more popular ways from Gotland was the Riga bay and further river Düna.

                          Tore
                          -- 
                          
                        • tgpedersen
                          ... Denmark ... 200 ... corresponds ... everybody ... Sea ... Visla, Bug ... at ... I have found some information you will appreciate. I recently reread
                          Message 12 of 13 , Mar 31, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In cybalist@y..., Tore Gannholm <tore.gannholm@s...> wrote:
                            > >According to Albrectsen, the finds in Fyn and other parts of
                            Denmark
                            > >point to a connection towards Western Germania in the period 0 -
                            200
                            > >CE, then (200-400 CE) towards the Black Sea region. Perhaps what
                            > >happened was that the trade routes in that direction were slowly
                            > >opened again, in whatever way?
                            > >
                            > >I noticed BTW that the Germanic-speaking area at the time
                            corresponds
                            > >in extent to the later Poland-Lithuania. Since I suspect that trade
                            > >routes and transport are important in defining the area that a
                            > >linguistic group choose to settle in, could I ask Piotr (as
                            everybody
                            > >does!) to tell us some of what he might know of production and
                            > >transport routes in Poland-Lithuania, especially transport on water
                            > >and the problem of transshipment between the Baltic and the Black
                            Sea
                            > >river systems? All I know is anecdotal information that the roads
                            > >were not too good? Thank you in advance?
                            > >
                            > >Torsten
                            > >
                            >
                            > Torsten,
                            > Just read the Gotlandic history. The Gotlanders used these rivers:
                            Visla, Bug
                            >
                            > That is the way "Krampmacken" was intended to sail but was stopped
                            at
                            > the than Sovjet border. Instead they followed Visla all the way and
                            > went over to Donau.
                            >
                            > One of the more popular ways from Gotland was the Riga bay and
                            > further river Düna.
                            >
                            > Tore
                            > --

                            I have found some information you will appreciate. I recently reread
                            Albrectsen. Seems he and everyone else was puzzled that inhumation
                            graves from pre-Roman Iron Age (before 0 CE) were found in Gotland
                            when everywhere else in Scandinavia nothing but cremation graves are
                            found. And that they disappear in early Roman Iron Age only to
                            reappear later.

                            Where do I find that Gotland history? I seem to recall you had a site
                            on it somewhere?

                            Torsten
                          • Tore Gannholm
                            ... Torsten, My site is http://www.stavgard.com I am buzy making available various articles about the Baltic (Gotlandic) history on
                            Message 13 of 13 , Mar 31, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              [tied] Re: False Scandinavian Origins

                              > Torsten,
                              > Just read the Gotlandic history. The Gotlanders used these rivers:
                              Visla, Bug
                              >
                              > That is the way "Krampmacken" was intended to sail but was stopped
                              at
                              > the than Sovjet border. Instead they followed Visla all the way and
                              > went over to Donau.
                              >
                              > One of the more popular ways from Gotland was the Riga bay and
                              > further river Düna.
                              >
                              > Tore
                              > --

                              I have found some information you will appreciate. I recently reread
                              Albrectsen. Seems he and everyone else was puzzled that inhumation
                              graves from pre-Roman Iron Age (before 0 CE) were found in Gotland
                              when everywhere else in Scandinavia nothing but cremation graves are
                              found. And that they disappear in early Roman Iron Age only to
                              reappear later.

                              Where do I find that Gotland history? I seem to recall you had a site
                              on it somewhere?

                              Torsten

                              Torsten,
                              My site is http://www.stavgard.com

                              I am buzy making available various articles about the Baltic (Gotlandic) history on http://www.stavgard.com/Gothic-L

                              I have an article in Swedish by profesor Stenberger about the early inhumation in Gotland.

                              Tore
                              -- 
                              
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.