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

Re: [gothic-l] Re: construction of gothic scandinavian urheimat

Expand Messages
  • Michael Erwin
    ... In the Anglo-Saxon case, it s well-established that it was mostly re- identification and assimilation, not migration. In the Gothic case, the historical
    Message 1 of 9 , May 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On May 8, 2008, at 3:15 AM, OSCAR HERRERA wrote:
      > i i think our suppositions are unfounded about the goths.....they
      > migrated from gutland to the european mainland and transgressed with
      > their migration south thru centuries...we understand little about
      > the germanic tribes and their customs before medeival times so
      > supposition means little of them or the goths....i think its pretty
      > obvious that germanic tribes expanded thru population then and
      > simultaneously descended thru out europe.....i think the goths did
      > the same with no help of other races or cultures around them....
      >

      In the Anglo-Saxon case, it's well-established that it was mostly re-
      identification and assimilation, not migration. In the Gothic case,
      the historical evidence for re-identification is clearer than the
      Anglo-Saxon case, though unfortunately the genetic evidence is not
      available. (Wulfila himself was descended from non-Goths).
    • Michal Cigan
      Im atracted rather to the concept of re-identification too - regardless we discuse about Goths, or any other of mediaval or premediaval gentes (even modern
      Message 2 of 9 , May 12, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Im atracted rather to the concept of re-identification too - regardless we discuse about Goths, or any other of mediaval or premediaval gentes (even modern nations and national states). I only need to know, how far went the discusion about identity problem in the case of Goths.

        In my opinion group identity is a question of political construction, not of real biological ties. Social group, and especially its elite, often used to create narratives about their biological ties (only this "after-narrative" situation is what makes them literally "group" or "comunity"), best reaching to the past times (comon geografical origin - ancient homeland, unbroken royal dynasty and so on). But it does not imply empirical "realness" of this sonstructions; it does not imply, thet events described in such myths (empirical - biological, geografic - ties) are necessary historical real.

        M.

        Michael Erwin <merwin@...> wrote: On May 8, 2008, at 3:15 AM, OSCAR HERRERA wrote:
        > i i think our suppositions are unfounded about the goths.....they
        > migrated from gutland to the european mainland and transgressed with
        > their migration south thru centuries...we understand little about
        > the germanic tribes and their customs before medeival times so
        > supposition means little of them or the goths....i think its pretty
        > obvious that germanic tribes expanded thru population then and
        > simultaneously descended thru out europe.....i think the goths did
        > the same with no help of other races or cultures around them....
        >

        In the Anglo-Saxon case, it's well-established that it was mostly re-
        identification and assimilation, not migration. In the Gothic case,
        the historical evidence for re-identification is clearer than the
        Anglo-Saxon case, though unfortunately the genetic evidence is not
        available. (Wulfila himself was descended from non-Goths).





        ---------------------------------
        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.