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

Re: Continued Review of _Odin in Azov_

Expand Messages
  • faltin2001
    ... I read Sevin s book. It is old (1950s or 60s) and portrays many aspects that have long been superceded by new research especially with regards to the
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 12 1:33 AM
      --- In gothic-l@y..., "Bertil Haggman" <mvk575b@t...> wrote:
      > Heinrich Sevin has expressed the case for the Gepids
      > being Goths well in his book _Die Gebiden_:
      >


      I read Sevin's book. It is old (1950s or 60s) and portrays many
      aspects that have long been superceded by new research especially
      with regards to the origin of the Goths.


      <snipped the bit that is based on Sevin's outdated introduction>



      > Personally I think Per Lilliestrom is correct when
      > depicting the Gepids in the third century AD as
      > of Gothic stock.



      What does of 'Gothic stock' mean? Gothic is not a biological or
      genetic characteristic, but a political term. There is no Gothic DNA.
      There were likely Roman provincials, Sarmatians, Tracians, Dacians,
      etc. who became Goths. The Gepids originated from the same Iron Age
      culture as the Goths and their ancestors may have been part of the
      earliest Goths, the Gutones. Yet, it makes no historical sense to say
      that Gepids are a Gothic people in the 5th or 4th century.



      >
      > This supports the argument that the Gepids, at least
      > before they were subjugated by the Huns, could be discussed
      > on this list, as has been the Eruli, as a Gothic people.



      Any tribe that was directly involved with the Goths can be discussed
      on this list if the context relates to the Goths directly.

      Dirk


      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yet, Jordanes called the Gepids a Gothic people.
      >
      > The only way in which the Gepids may be labled a Gothic (speaking)
      > people in a meaningful way might be in linguistic terms. As East
      > Germanic people they probably spoke a language that was close or
      even
      > identical to Gothic.
    • george knysh
      ... *****GK: We might wish to take our cue from the Romans on this one. The distinction between Goths and Gepids was already made in the 3rd century. We
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 12 4:45 AM
        --- faltin2001 <dirk@...> wrote:
        > --- In gothic-l@y..., "Bertil Haggman"
        > <mvk575b@t...> wrote:
        > > Heinrich Sevin has expressed the case for the
        > Gepids
        > > being Goths well in his book _Die Gebiden_:
        > >
        >
        >
        > I read Sevin's book. It is old (1950s or 60s) and
        > portrays many
        > aspects that have long been superceded by new
        > research especially
        > with regards to the origin of the Goths.
        >
        >
        > <snipped the bit that is based on Sevin's outdated
        > introduction>
        >
        >
        >
        > > Personally I think Per Lilliestrom is correct when
        > > depicting the Gepids in the third century AD as
        > > of Gothic stock.
        >
        >
        >
        > What does of 'Gothic stock' mean? Gothic is not a
        > biological or
        > genetic characteristic, but a political term. There
        > is no Gothic DNA.
        > There were likely Roman provincials, Sarmatians,
        > Tracians, Dacians,
        > etc. who became Goths. The Gepids originated from
        > the same Iron Age
        > culture as the Goths and their ancestors may have
        > been part of the
        > earliest Goths, the Gutones. Yet, it makes no
        > historical sense to say
        > that Gepids are a Gothic people in the 5th or 4th
        > century.
        >
        >
        >
        > >
        > > This supports the argument that the Gepids, at
        > least
        > > before they were subjugated by the Huns, could be
        > discussed
        > > on this list, as has been the Eruli, as a Gothic
        > people.


        *****GK: We might wish to take our cue from the Romans
        on this one. The distinction between "Goths" and
        "Gepids" was already made in the 3rd century. We have
        coins of Emperor Probus (276-282) with the legend
        "VICTORIA GOTHICA" and at least one that I'm aware of
        with the legend "VICTORIA GEPIDICA". And there are
        other texts (including one pertaining to events of ca.
        291) which clearly distinguish Goths and Gepids.*****


        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
        http://news.yahoo.com
      • faltin2001
        ... Hi George, I agree of course and think that in political terms Gepids and Goths were certainly different peoples/tribes, who were often even hostile
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 13 1:05 AM
          --- In gothic-l@y..., george knysh <gknysh@y...> wrote:
          >
          > --- faltin2001 <dirk@s...> wrote:
          > > --- In gothic-l@y..., "Bertil Haggman"
          > > <mvk575b@t...> wrote:
          > > > Heinrich Sevin has expressed the case for the
          > > Gepids
          > > > being Goths well in his book _Die Gebiden_:
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > > I read Sevin's book. It is old (1950s or 60s) and
          > > portrays many
          > > aspects that have long been superceded by new
          > > research especially
          > > with regards to the origin of the Goths.
          > >
          > >
          > > <snipped the bit that is based on Sevin's outdated
          > > introduction>
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > > Personally I think Per Lilliestrom is correct when
          > > > depicting the Gepids in the third century AD as
          > > > of Gothic stock.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > What does of 'Gothic stock' mean? Gothic is not a
          > > biological or
          > > genetic characteristic, but a political term. There
          > > is no Gothic DNA.
          > > There were likely Roman provincials, Sarmatians,
          > > Tracians, Dacians,
          > > etc. who became Goths. The Gepids originated from
          > > the same Iron Age
          > > culture as the Goths and their ancestors may have
          > > been part of the
          > > earliest Goths, the Gutones. Yet, it makes no
          > > historical sense to say
          > > that Gepids are a Gothic people in the 5th or 4th
          > > century.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > >
          > > > This supports the argument that the Gepids, at
          > > least
          > > > before they were subjugated by the Huns, could be
          > > discussed
          > > > on this list, as has been the Eruli, as a Gothic
          > > people.
          >
          >
          > *****GK: We might wish to take our cue from the Romans
          > on this one. The distinction between "Goths" and
          > "Gepids" was already made in the 3rd century. We have
          > coins of Emperor Probus (276-282) with the legend
          > "VICTORIA GOTHICA" and at least one that I'm aware of
          > with the legend "VICTORIA GEPIDICA". And there are
          > other texts (including one pertaining to events of ca.
          > 291) which clearly distinguish Goths and Gepids.*****
          >



          Hi George,

          I agree of course and think that in political terms Gepids and Goths
          were certainly different peoples/tribes, who were often even hostile
          towards each other. A statement that 'Gepids are a Gothic people' or
          are 'of Gothic stock' as Bertil put it, is difficult to support for
          the period from the 3rd to 6th century. As a modern historical
          identification this identity seems to make little sense. As I stated
          earlier, I think that the term 'Gothic people' has occationally been
          used like the term Scythian people, for 'eastern barbarians'.

          The term being of 'Gothic stock' seems to imply some sort of
          biological relationship or physical similarity. In this respect,
          Istvan Bona's book called 'Anbruch des Mittelalters:
          Gepiden und Langobarden im Karpatenbecken', Budapest 1975, is of
          interest. Bona reports about anthropological investigations on
          skeletons from the middle Danube and Theis area. He states that
          anthropologists found that male Langobards had an average height of
          1.8m, with typical caucasian features (he mentioned long skulls,
          eagle-noses, etc.). In contrast, the East Germanic people (Gepids,
          Heruls, Goths) in that area showed only an average height of 1.7m.
          Thus, they were significantly and noticably smaller than Langobards.
          The East Germanic skeletons also displayed slight mongoloid features
          (round skulls, short flat noses, etc.) at times. The anthropologists
          cited by Bona, attributed this to a mixing with Sarmatians, Huns and
          Alans.

          I could imagine that this kind of physical similarity among eastern
          people like Goths, Gepids and Heruls in contrast to West Germanic
          people like the Langobards could have provided ancient authors like
          Jordanes (himself apparently of Gothic-Alanic origin) with additional
          reason for putting them into one category.

          cheers,
          Dirk
        • george knysh
          ... *****GK: What s curious is Jordanes lumping together of Goths and Gepids (Heruli not included here). Perhaps this was also due to the Gepid control
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 13 11:03 AM
            --- faltin2001 <dirk@...> wrote:
            > The East Germanic skeletons also displayed slight
            > mongoloid features
            > (round skulls, short flat noses, etc.) at times. The
            > anthropologists
            > cited by Bona, attributed this to a mixing with
            > Sarmatians, Huns and
            > Alans.
            >
            > I could imagine that this kind of physical
            > similarity among eastern
            > people like Goths, Gepids and Heruls in contrast to
            > West Germanic
            > people like the Langobards could have provided
            > ancient authors like
            > Jordanes (himself apparently of Gothic-Alanic
            > origin) with additional
            > reason for putting them into one category.

            *****GK: What's curious is Jordanes' lumping together
            of Goths and Gepids (Heruli not included here).
            Perhaps this was also due to the Gepid control
            ("Gepedoios") for some time of the area previously
            held by the Goths ("Gothiscandza"). Archaeologically,
            the Wielbark Goths evolved into the Chernyakhiv Goths,
            while the Gepids apparently stayed at the Late
            Wielbark stage (many of them at any rate). But the
            point about fusions with eastern steppe peoples (esp.
            Huns) seems valid.*******
            >

            __________________________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
            http://news.yahoo.com
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.