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

Emigration av Goths

Expand Messages
  • Wilhelm Otto
    Thanks a lot for all the answers to my question of gothic emigration from Scandinavia. I have now read Kaliff’s book and have been pondering the situation.
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 29, 2006
      Thanks a lot for all the answers to my question of gothic emigration from
      Scandinavia. I have now read Kaliff�s book and have been pondering the
      situation. One solution could be to run Heathers argument to the bottom line
      and see if it stands firm or has to be adjusted.



      Kaliff mentions a lot of contacts across the Baltic and takes up some very
      interesting issues. But I find Heathers crucial question to be one of
      timing. His argument runs as follows:

      The Gotho-Gepidan culture was once identifiable on the basis of seven
      elements. These were inhumation burial, a lack of weapons in graves, and the
      use of stone circles and standing stones in cemeteries, pear shaped metal
      pendants, serpent-headed bracelets, S-shaped clasps and a particular type of
      pottery decoration, which combines roughening with polishing. (Heather page
      14)

      This Gotho-Gepidan culture was established both in Scandinavia as well as
      south of the Baltic around the Vistula. This is taken to be supporting
      Jordane�s history of emigration. But Heather claims that to do so, these
      seven elements has to be older in Scandinavia than south of the Baltic. This
      puts new demands on dating. Heather says that in the latest decennials a new
      and better school has come forward. The argument runs as follows:

      The appearance of more-developed types of an object can be reasonably
      presumed to be subsequent to simpler, therefore earlier, forms. eaTHERS In
      recent years, the systematic analysis of an ever-increasing body of material
      has allowed the typologies of a whole series of objects to be defined with
      much greater security. But any individual type of brooch or buckle might
      have been adapted at different times in different areas, or, indeed, or
      deliberately retained as antiques. Dating has come to rely, therefore, not
      on individual objects but on groups of them. (Heather page 19)

      Using this better system of dating Heather seems to be confident to claim
      that all the elements defining the Gotho-Gepidan culture are later in
      Scandinavia but one. The stone circles are older in Scandinavia. The
      conclusion seems to be that there has been no emigration from Scandinavia to
      the Vistula discharge into the Baltic.



      Kaliff thinks that there has been a few boatloads going south. The
      definition of a migration is not clear cut. There may well be old stories of
      a few boatloads going south as Jordane�s history says. They do not seem to
      be as important as to shape the Gothic culture. This raises the question:
      What is the criterion for an emigration?

      This is at least a start.

      Wilhelm













      hE


      --
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/240 - Release Date: 2006-01-25



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Tore Gannholm
      ... Hi! This element is present in Gotland Read Stenberger http://www.stavgard.com/romaniron/stenberger_/ forromerskj_/aldstajarnalder/default.htm
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 30, 2006
        On Jan 29, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Wilhelm Otto wrote:

        > Thanks a lot for all the answers to my question of gothic
        > emigration from
        > Scandinavia. I have now read Kaliff�s book and have been pondering the
        > situation. One solution could be to run Heathers argument to the
        > bottom line
        > and see if it stands firm or has to be adjusted.
        >
        >
        >
        > Kaliff mentions a lot of contacts across the Baltic and takes up
        > some very
        > interesting issues. But I find Heathers crucial question to be one of
        > timing. His argument runs as follows:
        >
        > The Gotho-Gepidan culture was once identifiable on the basis of seven
        > elements. These were inhumation burial,

        Hi!

        This element is present in Gotland

        Read Stenberger http://www.stavgard.com/romaniron/stenberger_/
        forromerskj_/aldstajarnalder/default.htm

        "�verg�ngstiden mellan brons- och j�rn�lder - avsnittet ca 600-400 f
        Kr, delvis sammanfallande med den keltiska maktens uppstigande i
        Europa - �r
        som tidigare sagts svagt belyst genom fornfynd fr�n det svenska
        fastlandet. "

        "Annorlunda f�rh�ller det sig p� Gotland. D�r har p� senare tid den
        arkeologiska aspekten underg�tt stora f�r�ndningar. N�gra l�sfynd var
        tidigare k�nda
        d�rifr�n, huvudsakligen bygeln�lar av brons och j�rn �vensom ett
        mindre antal
        brand- och skelettgravar med liknande n�lar. Dessa skelettgravar
        v�ckte tidigt
        uppm�rksamhet, eftersom samtida s�dana inte var k�nda fr�n andra h�ll i
        Norden. Genom omfattande f�ltunders�kningar av Erik Nyl�n har de
        gotl�ndska fynden �kats i anm�rkningsv�rd grad och en m�ngd nya
        brand- och
        skelettgravar tillkommit. Jordandet har inte varit en
        undantagsf�reteelse utan
        ett allm�nt till�mpat gravskick p� �n under denna tid. De d�da har
        nedlagts
        i kistor av sten, ibland kanske av tr�, under flat mark eller t�ckta
        av flacka,
        runda, ofta omf�ngsrika stenr�sen. Vid slutet av brons�ldern har
        allts� jordandet �terinf�rts p� Gotland och till�mpats under
        �tminstone hela �verg�ngstiden
        f�r att sedan f�rsvinna igen, s. 334. F�rst vid den romerska
        j�rn�lderns b�rjan
        �tenv�nder bruket p� nytt, denna g�ng genom inflytanden fr�n
        germankulturerna p� kontinenten. D�refter vidmakth�lls det under den
        f�ljande f�rhistoriska tiden vid sidan av likbr�nningen f�r att vid
        kristendomens inf�rande bli
        allenar�dande."

        It is quite clear that inhumation was extensively practised in
        Gotland before in the Gepido-Gothian culture.

        Tore


        > a lack of weapons in graves, and the
        > use of stone circles and standing stones in cemeteries, pear shaped
        > metal
        > pendants, serpent-headed bracelets, S-shaped clasps and a
        > particular type of
        > pottery decoration, which combines roughening with polishing.
        > (Heather page
        > 14)
        >
        > This Gotho-Gepidan culture was established both in Scandinavia as
        > well as
        > south of the Baltic around the Vistula. This is taken to be supporting
        > Jordane�s history of emigration. But Heather claims that to do so,
        > these
        > seven elements has to be older in Scandinavia than south of the
        > Baltic. This
        > puts new demands on dating. Heather says that in the latest
        > decennials a new
        > and better school has come forward. The argument runs as follows:
        >
        > The appearance of more-developed types of an object can be reasonably
        > presumed to be subsequent to simpler, therefore earlier, forms.
        > eaTHERS In
        > recent years, the systematic analysis of an ever-increasing body of
        > material
        > has allowed the typologies of a whole series of objects to be
        > defined with
        > much greater security. But any individual type of brooch or buckle
        > might
        > have been adapted at different times in different areas, or,
        > indeed, or
        > deliberately retained as antiques. Dating has come to rely,
        > therefore, not
        > on individual objects but on groups of them. (Heather page 19)
        >
        > Using this better system of dating Heather seems to be confident to
        > claim
        > that all the elements defining the Gotho-Gepidan culture are later in
        > Scandinavia but one. The stone circles are older in Scandinavia. The
        > conclusion seems to be that there has been no emigration from
        > Scandinavia to
        > the Vistula discharge into the Baltic.
        >
        >
        >
        > Kaliff thinks that there has been a few boatloads going south. The
        > definition of a migration is not clear cut. There may well be old
        > stories of
        > a few boatloads going south as Jordane�s history says. They do not
        > seem to
        > be as important as to shape the Gothic culture. This raises the
        > question:
        > What is the criterion for an emigration?
        >
        > This is at least a start.
        >
        > Wilhelm
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Wilhelm Otto
        Hi Tore, Our research question is, as I have got it, “Did the Goths emanate from Scandinavia to emmigrate into Central Europe? Those who believe that this
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 4, 2006
          Hi Tore,

          Our research question is, as I have got it, �Did the Goths emanate from
          Scandinavia to emmigrate into Central Europe?

          Those who believe that this was the case refer to Jordanes. And I refer to
          Peter Heather who tells us about evidence for the Goths Scandinavian origins
          has been found in two elements of the Geticas text; the story of Berig but
          also the names of some Scandinavian tribes which are mentioned just before
          it (Getica 19 � 24). This later part mentions Vagoth, Gauthigoth and
          Ostrogoth. This demonstrates such a profound knowledge of the tribes first
          home that it is proof in itself.

          Heather admits �that the story of Berig and his migration genuinely reflect
          Gothic story telling in some way, but he is less sure that the original
          Gothic stories mentioned Scandinavia�. And he goes on: �Indeed the pattern
          of the evidence here is in some ways similar to the original stories, which
          have survived for another Germanic people, the Lombards.� (Both books) �by
          Paul the Deacon reports that the Lombards original home was Scandinavia. But
          there is reason to think that Paul was at least influenced by having read
          Jordanes. A third text, the so called Codex Gothanum, although telling not
          dissimilar stories about some of the same people nevertheless situates the
          Lombards� first home on the extreme boundary of Gaul. This is exactly where
          they were located by Tacitus (Germania 40)�) And Heather goes on to show the
          intellectual processes at work. The recorders had to make sense out of the
          material they had, and it was obscure.

          But is this a foundation for a firm belief? I personally think it is not. So
          we go to archaeology to find support for our view. Heather claims that the
          Gotho-Gepidan Culture was older south of the Baltic than northwards. When it
          comes to dating he writes:

          The appearance of more-developed types of an object can be reasonably
          presumed to be subsequent to simpler, therefore earlier, forms. eaTHERS In
          recent years, the systematic analysis of an ever-increasing body of material
          has allowed the typologies of a whole series of objects to be defined with
          much greater security. But any individual type of brooch or buckle might
          have been adapted at different times in different areas, or, indeed, or
          deliberately retained as antiques. Dating has come to rely, therefore, not
          on individual objects but on groups of them. (Heather page 19)

          This takes, as I read it, the stress from one singular element and presents
          a holistic mode of dating method. Thereby we have left the medieval
          scholastic forms of argument behind us. It is not enough to find a single
          bit which does not fit into the system. It is to find a better system. Still
          You have not shown that the Culture is older on Gotland than south of the
          Baltic.





          The problem of how and to a certain extent when people moved will be
          elucidated in a not so distant future, when the analyses of our genes and
          such like will come a bit further. It is already well on its way. National
          Geographic and other (IBM) are doing a wonderful job at reconstructing the
          movements of various people on the globe. This work is based on our genetic
          markers. The present situation may be studied at

          HYPERLINK
          "http://www.nationalgeographic.com/genographic"http://www.nationalgeographic
          .com/genographic

          Just click on the Atlas of the Human Journey. There you may find the genetic
          markers showing how people migrated until fairly late times. We can not yet
          follow the Goths journey across Europe. We might never be able to do it. I
          think the Goths were a social construction, which did not stand for the same
          thing during the years. What for any given time was Gothic varied. The link
          to NG gives us, however, a reminder of the evolution of science. Yours

          Wilhelm


















          --
          No virus found in this outgoing message.
          Checked by AVG Free Edition.
          Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.15.0/248 - Release Date: 2006-02-01



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Tore Gannholm
          Hi Wilhelm, ... There is nothing that says that the culture south of the Baltic is older than that on Gotland. If you have read Kaliff s book you can see that
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 5, 2006
            Hi Wilhelm,


            On Feb 4, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Wilhelm Otto wrote:

            > Hi Tore,
            >
            > Our research question is, as I have got it, �Did the Goths emanate
            > from
            > Scandinavia to emmigrate into Central Europe?
            >
            > Those who believe that this was the case refer to Jordanes. And I
            > refer to
            > Peter Heather who tells us about evidence for the Goths
            > Scandinavian origins
            > has been found in two elements of the Geticas text; the story of
            > Berig but
            > also the names of some Scandinavian tribes which are mentioned just
            > before
            > it (Getica 19 � 24). This later part mentions Vagoth, Gauthigoth and
            > Ostrogoth. This demonstrates such a profound knowledge of the
            > tribes first
            > home that it is proof in itself.
            >
            > Heather admits �that the story of Berig and his migration genuinely
            > reflect
            > Gothic story telling in some way, but he is less sure that the
            > original
            > Gothic stories mentioned Scandinavia�. And he goes on: �Indeed the
            > pattern
            > of the evidence here is in some ways similar to the original
            > stories, which
            > have survived for another Germanic people, the Lombards.� (Both
            > books) �by
            > Paul the Deacon reports that the Lombards original home was
            > Scandinavia. But
            > there is reason to think that Paul was at least influenced by
            > having read
            > Jordanes. A third text, the so called Codex Gothanum, although
            > telling not
            > dissimilar stories about some of the same people nevertheless
            > situates the
            > Lombards� first home on the extreme boundary of Gaul. This is
            > exactly where
            > they were located by Tacitus (Germania 40)�) And Heather goes on to
            > show the
            > intellectual processes at work. The recorders had to make sense out
            > of the
            > material they had, and it was obscure.
            >
            > But is this a foundation for a firm belief? I personally think it
            > is not. So
            > we go to archaeology to find support for our view. Heather claims
            > that the
            > Gotho-Gepidan Culture was older south of the Baltic than
            > northwards. When it
            > comes to dating he writes:
            >
            > The appearance of more-developed types of an object can be reasonably
            > presumed to be subsequent to simpler, therefore earlier, forms.
            > eaTHERS In
            > recent years, the systematic analysis of an ever-increasing body of
            > material
            > has allowed the typologies of a whole series of objects to be
            > defined with
            > much greater security. But any individual type of brooch or buckle
            > might
            > have been adapted at different times in different areas, or,
            > indeed, or
            > deliberately retained as antiques. Dating has come to rely,
            > therefore, not
            > on individual objects but on groups of them. (Heather page 19)
            >
            > This takes, as I read it, the stress from one singular element and
            > presents
            > a holistic mode of dating method. Thereby we have left the medieval
            > scholastic forms of argument behind us. It is not enough to find a
            > single
            > bit which does not fit into the system. It is to find a better
            > system. Still
            > You have not shown that the Culture is older on Gotland than south
            > of the
            > Baltic.

            There is nothing that says that the culture south of the Baltic is
            older than that on Gotland.
            If you have read Kaliff's book you can see that there is a common
            culture in the Baltic with Gotland in the middle.
            The La T�ne culture had great influence on Gotland.
            In the centuries BC there are many similarities in the archaeology
            between Gotland and northern Poland.

            I don't know which languages you can read, however here are some
            links to my private research library

            http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/romaniron_/kulturcentrum/default.htm

            http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/romaniron_/origo/default.htm

            http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/beowulf_/wielbarksites/default.htm

            http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/beowulf_/schatze/default.htm

            http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/beowulf_/actaarchaeologi/default.htm

            http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/beowulf_/nordthrark/default.htm

            http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/beowulf_/latene/default.htm

            http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/beowulf_/makiewicz/default.htm

            http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/beowulf_/moorfunden/default.htm

            http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/beowulf_/hachmann/default.htm

            Tore


            >
            > The problem of how and to a certain extent when people moved will be
            > elucidated in a not so distant future, when the analyses of our
            > genes and
            > such like will come a bit further. It is already well on its way.
            > National
            > Geographic and other (IBM) are doing a wonderful job at
            > reconstructing the
            > movements of various people on the globe. This work is based on our
            > genetic
            > markers. The present situation may be studied at
            >
            > HYPERLINK
            > "http://www.nationalgeographic.com/genographic"http://
            > www.nationalgeographic
            > .com/genographic
            >
            > Just click on the Atlas of the Human Journey. There you may find
            > the genetic
            > markers showing how people migrated until fairly late times. We can
            > not yet
            > follow the Goths journey across Europe. We might never be able to
            > do it. I
            > think the Goths were a social construction, which did not stand for
            > the same
            > thing during the years. What for any given time was Gothic varied.
            > The link
            > to NG gives us, however, a reminder of the evolution of science. Yours
            >
            > Wilhelm
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Wilhelm Otto
            Hi Tore, Goth’s heritage. I have been pondering the answer I got from you 06 02 05. In that message you refer to the same book as you referred to in an
            Message 5 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
              Hi Tore,

              Goth�s heritage.

              I have been pondering the answer I got from you 06 02 05. In that message
              you refer to the same book as you referred to in an earlier answer to mine
              06 01 29. I have given several leads to several threads to questions to be
              pursued in this discussion. I have tried several approaches. But there is,
              whatever I say, only one answer � Kaliff�s book. Thus Kaliff�s book contains
              all the answers to the enigma of the Goth�s heritage! Still, Kaliff does not
              answer how to bridge the gap between the archaeological findings and the
              investigated culture. And how could he do that?



              Your answer, that the Goths came from Gotland, is remarkable, to say the
              least. Most scientists acknowledge that they don�t know from where the Goths
              came. What we know is that that they surface in history a couple of
              centuries AD in the area of the Donahue or north of the Black Sea. This is
              what we think we know. That is what we have as a working hypothesis. Then
              just to point at Kaliff�s book and say that there is your answers, is that
              good science? I do not think so! Do not forget that there is a need for a
              scientific discussion, a weighing of pros and cons in order to search for a
              better answer than that we have? There is always a better answer.



              There is a danger in answering such a question with archaeology and a couple
              of authors from a time when the truth had other claims then it does to
              today. Peter Heather shows the difficulties with using archaeology as a
              geographical positioner of a political force. On pages 15 and 16 he shows
              two maps. One shows �Groups named in Tacitus� Germania and their approximate
              locations� and the other shows �Traditional archaeological cultures of the
              earlier Roman Iron Age�. Pondering the two maps I figure that a negative
              indication is in some cases fair. A certain culture is probably not
              connected with a distant tribe if they do not have much in common, but a
              positive identification seems very difficult. A searching process in this
              manner, is it not the essence of the scientific culture which has given us
              so much benefit and ultimately made this part of the world rich?



              There is in our culture a dividing line between us who ask and those who
              decree. And there is a dividing line between our itchingly curious learning
              culture and those who know it all. There is a clash of cultures, in these
              days seen every day on the telly, and we, who think ourselves as historians,
              know that this is a long battle. The forces of ignorance and thus poverty
              have through the centuries been pushed back. The battle is no longer bloody,
              fought among the western countries. There, mostly, the battle is fought with
              words of arguments and reason. But it is still a long battle we have in
              front of us. And that battle is fought with asking questions.



              And the frontline is there not only between us. It is in our own minds too.
              At least is has to be in yours. You point out in a very good little book
              about history from Gotland that Gotlands nearest point on the mainland is in
              Curland and of a similarity of place names, duplicated in both places, both
              in Curland and Gotland. I had thought that you would draw the conclusion
              that a lot of people on Gotland descended from Curland. You did not. Great
              people seldom derive from small islands, but rather the other way. Could you
              just point to an exception? It would have been a very natural conclusion. It
              would at least have been a natural conclusion to ponder and ultimately to
              discuss. These similar place names could maybe have been dated. Thereby
              their position in the development of Gotland could have been established.
              And further there could maybe be analogies drawn from the importance of
              Iceland. It is another island where property was claimed by fire as Tjelvar
              did in Gotland. We could have gained some knowledge that way. Somebody else
              could have done that too. So we all had come out of it better off. And so I
              could go on.



              It did not happen. But the essence of the scientific discussion is that
              there is a process of persuasion; a sort of marketing of ideas if you got
              any, and are prepared to give and take. Such discussion convinces. It makes
              us believe that this or that is a clear cut case, or that the best questions
              are not yet asked. You have at least convinced me that Gothic heritage is
              not easily discussed. I can not see it as a matter of faith. I see it as a
              yet unsolved historical problem.

              Yours

              Wilhelm




              --
              No virus found in this outgoing message.
              Checked by AVG Free Edition.
              Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/267 - Release Date: 2006-02-22



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David Kiltz
              ... Hello all, in the context of this discussion I would like to draw your attention to a short paper by Frederik Kortlandt (University of Leiden) on the
              Message 6 of 15 , Mar 3, 2006
                On 01.03.2006, at 11:07, Wilhelm Otto wrote:

                > Goth’s heritage.

                Hello all,

                in the context of this discussion I would like to draw your attention
                to a short paper by Frederik Kortlandt (University of Leiden) on the
                subject. It's available as a free PDF download here:
                http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/

                Two notes: Unlike Mr. Kortlandt, I think it is generally unadvisable
                to (too easily) dismiss stories or legends of origin transmitted
                within a people (or a conglomerate of tribes). While they're often a
                mixture of various accounts and/or contain distortions, it is my
                experience that they generally prove to be remarkably accurate where
                it is possible to ascertain their historicity.

                As for the linguistic proximity of Gothic vis-à-vis other Germanic
                dialects my point would be the following: There are clear
                correspondances with North Germanic but they're not overwhelming.
                There are some similarities to more southern dialects. Overall,
                Gothic seems to have seperated rather early from other dialects and
                shows some very distinct traits not shared with any other dialect
                (partly archaisms). Iordanes account may very well contain some
                truth, I think. We may just have to adjust our chronology.

                Finally, a remark on two phenomena that Kortlandt adduce to 'prove'
                Gothic's close contact with Allemannic.
                1) He claims that Gothic _akêt, akeit_ derive from some Allemannic
                source. I really don't see how this cannot just be a loan from Latin.
                Viticulture existed along the Danube river.
                2) K. claims words as _Krêks_ 'Greek' and _marikreitum_ (dat. pl.)
                "betray the influence of an Upper German dialect without voiced
                obstruents". Firstly, I think it's notable that we have a sequence _k-
                r_ in both cases. Secondly, K. puts the contacts into the 1st - 2nd
                century A.D. However, our first attestations of those 'Upper German
                dialects' K. refers to date from many centuries later. K.'s
                assumption that a sound phenomenon found in those dialects existed
                _tel quel_ also at a much earlier time is just that, an unwarranted
                assumption.

                Looking forward to your comments,

                David
              • Tore Gannholm
                Hi Otto, I have another interesting book about the Gotlanders cultural and commercial involvement in the southern Baltic shores during the centuries BC.
                Message 7 of 15 , Mar 3, 2006
                  Hi Otto,
                  I have another interesting book about the Gotlanders cultural and
                  commercial involvement in the southern Baltic shores during the
                  centuries BC.

                  http://www.stavgard.com/romaniron/kringjarnaldern/default.htm

                  Unfortunately the book written by professor Erik Nylén is written in
                  Swedish with summary in German

                  On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Wilhelm Otto wrote:

                  > Hi Tore,
                  >
                  > Goth’s heritage.
                  >
                  > I have been pondering the answer I got from you 06 02 05. In that
                  > message
                  > you refer to the same book as you referred to in an earlier answer
                  > to mine
                  > 06 01 29. I have given several leads to several threads to
                  > questions to be
                  > pursued in this discussion. I have tried several approaches. But
                  > there is,
                  > whatever I say, only one answer – Kaliff’s book. Thus Kaliff’s book
                  > contains
                  > all the answers to the enigma of the Goth’s heritage! Still, Kaliff
                  > does not
                  > answer how to bridge the gap between the archaeological findings
                  > and the
                  > investigated culture. And how could he do that?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your answer, that the Goths came from Gotland, is remarkable, to
                  > say the
                  > least.

                  Please note, I don't say the Goths came from Gotland. I say Gotland
                  was in the center of the culture in the southern Baltic area. I can
                  only interpret it that the Gotlanders played a leading role in this
                  area. Therefore they might also have taken a leading part in the
                  formation of the "Gothic league".

                  > Most scientists acknowledge that they don’t know from where the Goths
                  > came. What we know is that that they surface in history a couple of
                  > centuries AD in the area of the Donahue or north of the Black Sea.
                  > This is
                  > what we think we know. That is what we have as a working
                  > hypothesis. Then
                  > just to point at Kaliff’s book and say that there is your answers,
                  > is that
                  > good science? I do not think so! Do not forget that there is a need
                  > for a
                  > scientific discussion, a weighing of pros and cons in order to
                  > search for a
                  > better answer than that we have? There is always a better answer.
                  >

                  Of this reason I try to find all sources to the Gotlandic trade and
                  cultural links in this area. I think this is good science.


                  >
                  >
                  > There is a danger in answering such a question with archaeology and
                  > a couple
                  > of authors from a time when the truth had other claims then it does to
                  > today. Peter Heather shows the difficulties with using archaeology
                  > as a
                  > geographical positioner of a political force. On pages 15 and 16 he
                  > shows
                  > two maps. One shows “Groups named in Tacitus’ Germania and their
                  > approximate
                  > locations” and the other shows “Traditional archaeological cultures
                  > of the
                  > earlier Roman Iron Age”. Pondering the two maps I figure that a
                  > negative
                  > indication is in some cases fair. A certain culture is probably not
                  > connected with a distant tribe if they do not have much in common,
                  > but a
                  > positive identification seems very difficult. A searching process
                  > in this
                  > manner, is it not the essence of the scientific culture which has
                  > given us
                  > so much benefit and ultimately made this part of the world rich?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > There is in our culture a dividing line between us who ask and
                  > those who
                  > decree. And there is a dividing line between our itchingly curious
                  > learning
                  > culture and those who know it all. There is a clash of cultures, in
                  > these
                  > days seen every day on the telly, and we, who think ourselves as
                  > historians,
                  > know that this is a long battle. The forces of ignorance and thus
                  > poverty
                  > have through the centuries been pushed back. The battle is no
                  > longer bloody,
                  > fought among the western countries. There, mostly, the battle is
                  > fought with
                  > words of arguments and reason. But it is still a long battle we
                  > have in
                  > front of us. And that battle is fought with asking questions.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > And the frontline is there not only between us. It is in our own
                  > minds too.
                  > At least is has to be in yours. You point out in a very good little
                  > book
                  > about history from Gotland that Gotlands nearest point on the
                  > mainland is in
                  > Curland and of a similarity of place names, duplicated in both
                  > places, both
                  > in Curland and Gotland. I had thought that you would draw the
                  > conclusion
                  > that a lot of people on Gotland descended from Curland.

                  Why should they. We have plenty of proof of Gotlandic colonies in
                  Curland. Excavated by professor Nerman in the 1920's

                  > You did not. Great
                  > people seldom derive from small islands, but rather the other way.
                  > Could you
                  > just point to an exception? It would have been a very natural
                  > conclusion. It
                  > would at least have been a natural conclusion to ponder and
                  > ultimately to
                  > discuss. These similar place names could maybe have been dated.
                  > Thereby
                  > their position in the development of Gotland could have been
                  > established.

                  I don't understand your reasing. Just look at the archaelogical finds
                  in Gotland!!

                  > And further there could maybe be analogies drawn from the
                  > importance of
                  > Iceland. It is another island where property was claimed by fire as
                  > Tjelvar
                  > did in Gotland. We could have gained some knowledge that way.

                  First settlers in Gotland arrived 8000 years ago and we have a very
                  rich archaeological history.

                  We can't just ignore Gotland. It exists with the rich archaeological
                  sites.

                  It is ridiculous that you can still read in some Swedish books that
                  Tacitus wrote about the prosperous Swedes and did not know about
                  Gotland.

                  Tacitus' informer visited the amber diggings in the Visla area and
                  visited the most important trading places in the Southern Baltic. If
                  you stand in the Visla area Gotland is straight out in the middle of
                  the Baltic. If you instead want to se the so called "Svear" you have
                  to submerge Gotland.


                  The first settlers arrived in Iceland 1200 years ago.

                  Tore

                  > Somebody else
                  > could have done that too. So we all had come out of it better off.
                  > And so I
                  > could go on.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > It did not happen. But the essence of the scientific discussion is
                  > that
                  > there is a process of persuasion; a sort of marketing of ideas if
                  > you got
                  > any, and are prepared to give and take. Such discussion convinces.
                  > It makes
                  > us believe that this or that is a clear cut case, or that the best
                  > questions
                  > are not yet asked. You have at least convinced me that Gothic
                  > heritage is
                  > not easily discussed. I can not see it as a matter of faith. I see
                  > it as a
                  > yet unsolved historical problem.
                  >
                  > Yours
                  >
                  > Wilhelm
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • akoddsson
                  Hi Wilhelm and Tore. ... the least. Most scientists acknowledge that they don t know from where the Goths came. What we know is that that they surface in
                  Message 8 of 15 , Mar 9, 2006
                    Hi Wilhelm and Tore.

                    > Your answer, that the Goths came from Gotland, is remarkable, to say
                    the least. Most scientists acknowledge that they don't know from where
                    the Goths came. What we know is that that they surface in history a
                    couple of centuries AD in the area of the Donahue or north of the
                    Black Sea. This is what we think we know. That is what we have as a
                    working hypothesis.

                    Two things seem obvious to me in connection with the Goth's homelend.
                    The first is that there is a land, Gotland, that is called the land of
                    the Goths. As far back as sources go, the land appears to have born
                    this name. As parallels we have Sweden (the land of the Swedes),
                    Ireland (the land of the Irish), and likely thousands of other such
                    names from throughout the world and in numerous languages. This makes
                    me wonder why Goths should be such an exception, emigration aside. The
                    second is that as one specializing mostly in Germanic linguistics, and
                    as one who has studied both Gothic and Gotlandic, it seems painfully
                    obvious that Gotlandic, while absorbed into North Germanic, deviates
                    from it, especially phonologically but also in other matters, in ways
                    which agree with Gothic. As a non-specialist in Gothic history, and as
                    a layman in Gothodemia, I still see no reason why the Goths should not
                    have a homeland in Gotland, where Goths still live, emigration aside,
                    and even if their original territory was wider, as it likely was.

                    Sincerely,
                    Konrad
                  • macmaster@riseup.net
                    Names can stick around after peoples move on (or those left behind transform into something else). Just looking at the peoples of the Volkerwanderung, we also
                    Message 9 of 15 , Mar 9, 2006
                      Names can stick around after peoples move on (or those left behind
                      transform into something else). Just looking at the peoples of the
                      Volkerwanderung, we also find Rugen as the homeland of the Rugi and
                      Bornholm as the Burgundian homeland. Other names left behind include the
                      several Burgundies in France and the "Homeland of the Boii", a Celtic
                      people, giving the name to a Slavic area (bohemia) and a German area
                      (Bavaria) as well as a name in French for a group ultimately from India
                      (the Romany "Bohemians"). "Frank" meant a Germanic people now but
                      "French" means a romance speaker. And so on.

                      Similarity of names may indicate a historic link but doesn't prove it (if
                      one reads Jordanes literally, one would assume that the Sarmatian "Getae"
                      were Goths rather than just similarly named; if he'd known about them, I'm
                      sure Jordanes would have tossed in the Guti, 'barbarian' raiders of
                      ancient Mesopotamia).

                      As the names of bavarians and French suggest, there probably is a
                      hoistoric link between Gotland and the Goths but it may be much less
                      straight forward.

                      I'm inclined to leave it in the "Unprovable speculation" category.

                      Tom


                      akoddsson wrote:
                      > Hi Wilhelm and Tore.
                      >
                      > > Your answer, that the Goths came from Gotland, is remarkable, to say
                      > the least. Most scientists acknowledge that they don't know from where
                      > the Goths came. What we know is that that they surface in history a
                      > couple of centuries AD in the area of the Donahue or north of the
                      > Black Sea. This is what we think we know. That is what we have as a
                      > working hypothesis.
                      >
                      > Two things seem obvious to me in connection with the Goth's homelend.
                      > The first is that there is a land, Gotland, that is called the land of
                      > the Goths. As far back as sources go, the land appears to have born
                      > this name. As parallels we have Sweden (the land of the Swedes),
                      > Ireland (the land of the Irish), and likely thousands of other such
                      > names from throughout the world and in numerous languages. This makes
                      > me wonder why Goths should be such an exception, emigration aside. The
                      > second is that as one specializing mostly in Germanic linguistics, and
                      > as one who has studied both Gothic and Gotlandic, it seems painfully
                      > obvious that Gotlandic, while absorbed into North Germanic, deviates
                      > from it, especially phonologically but also in other matters, in ways
                      > which agree with Gothic. As a non-specialist in Gothic history, and as
                      > a layman in Gothodemia, I still see no reason why the Goths should not
                      > have a homeland in Gotland, where Goths still live, emigration aside,
                      > and even if their original territory was wider, as it likely was.
                      >
                      > Sincerely,
                      > Konrad
                      >
                      >
                    • akoddsson
                      Hi Tom and all. ... Sure. The problem, however, is that not everyone moves on. Some stay behind. Gotland, for instance, has been continuously populated, and
                      Message 10 of 15 , Mar 10, 2006
                        Hi Tom and all.

                        > Names can stick around after peoples move on (or those left behind
                        > transform into something else).

                        Sure. The problem, however, is that not everyone moves on. Some stay
                        behind. Gotland, for instance, has been continuously populated, and
                        the island can only hold so many folk, at least as a traditional
                        agricultural society (one man one farm). Logically, folk who didn't
                        inherit farms would be inclined to seek other employment.

                        > Just looking at the peoples of the Volkerwanderung, we also find
                        Rugen as the homeland of the Rugi and Bornholm as the Burgundian
                        homeland.

                        Yes, but there are also modern Rugi and Burgungians, and these land
                        have also been continually populated. I, for instance, work with
                        several folk from Rogaland, who mostly claim to be descendants of
                        Rugi as far back as they can trace their descent. I found this out
                        after I asked. Thus, there certainly are Rugi, like there are Goths,
                        even if times have changed.

                        > Other names left behind include the several Burgundies in France
                        and the "Homeland of the Boii", a Celtic people, giving the name to
                        a Slavic area (bohemia) and a German area (Bavaria) as well as a
                        name in French for a group ultimately from India (the
                        Romany "Bohemians").

                        Yes.

                        > "Frank" meant a Germanic people now but "French" means a romance
                        speaker. And so on.

                        Yes, but France is, admittedly, a rather large nation. Perhaps one
                        should look at provincial populations more closely, as several
                        groups in France would seem to exist as smaller cultural groupings,
                        common language aside (Basks an exception here). Consider, for
                        instance, the Gaelic population of Galitia (wrong spelling, no
                        doubt ;) From what I understand, they still speak a kind of Gaelic.
                        I discovered on a radio program that they also play some fierce and
                        beautiful Gaelic music, closely related to Irish. There are likely
                        numerous other links. Thus, I don't believe that cultures simply
                        disappear due to emigration by some members.

                        > Similarity of names may indicate a historic link but doesn't prove
                        it (if one reads Jordanes literally, one would assume that the
                        Sarmatian "Getae" were Goths rather than just similarly named; if
                        he'd known about them, I'm sure Jordanes would have tossed in the
                        Guti, 'barbarian' raiders of ancient Mesopotamia).

                        But a simple survey of major European 'tribal' names would seem to
                        suggest, emigration aside, that most groups still live in areas
                        where they once lived. Obviously, folk move, but those that remain
                        often have descendants as well, as so on.

                        > As the names of bavarians and French suggest, there probably is a
                        hoistoric link between Gotland and the Goths but it may be much less
                        straight forward.

                        Probably complicated, like most issues involving human populations,
                        I agree. However, as there is still a Gotland and a Gothic folk, I
                        think it important that cultural sensitivity be shown. No one will
                        deny the existance of England, simply because Americans, Canadians,
                        Australians and others speak English, or because academics deeming
                        English highly important wish to locate its origins in Canada, for
                        instance. That would be absurd. Likewise, while Goths would seem to
                        be highly important to certain Germanic academics (no doubt largely
                        due to a fluke attestation of a portion of their language via a
                        Bible translation), this hardly gives them the right to fleece the
                        Gotlanders of their culture and history. A fluke is a fluke, not
                        something planned. Earlier Gotlanders could hardly have known that
                        Goths would become such an important and hotly debated topic in the
                        future, raising by extention questions and controversial debate on
                        the topic ad infinitum. Gotlanders are, after all, regular folk and,
                        as history would have it, Goths. Not that it matters, or should even
                        matter. Denying it, I think, could only be based on romantic ideas,
                        whereby an historical folk cannot be allowed to exist in any form in
                        modern times, especially not an historical folk deemed important by
                        academics. Thus, if anything, we academics probably owe Gotlanders
                        an apology for dragging their culture and history through the mud
                        for personal gain and academic agendas.

                        > I'm inclined to leave it in the "Unprovable speculation" category

                        What I would say is that, like other populations, Goths experienced
                        emigration. How many left and how many stayed is not the point. The
                        point is that while academia may be highly interested in the remains
                        of their 4th century language, or in the historical activities of
                        later continental Goths, this hardly gives us the right to simply
                        remove Gotland and its Goths from the map or erase them from the
                        history books. Folks change, but they don't thereby loose membership
                        in their culture. Thus, I will grant the Gotlanders the same rights
                        as other folks to define their own culture and see it as they will,
                        without too much interference from the rest of us. Stating things
                        like 'you are not a Goth' or 'this list has nothing to do with your
                        culture' to living Goths would be like telling an Irish person that
                        he need no apply to a list about ancient Irish or Celts, as he is
                        neither Irish nor Celtic. Therefore, I simply offer these words in
                        the hope that academics, and others, interested in Goths, show the
                        living the same respect as the dead.

                        Sincerely,
                        Konrad

                        > Tom
                        >
                        >
                        > akoddsson wrote:
                        > > Hi Wilhelm and Tore.
                        > >
                        > > > Your answer, that the Goths came from Gotland, is remarkable,
                        to say
                        > > the least. Most scientists acknowledge that they don't know
                        from where
                        > > the Goths came. What we know is that that they surface in
                        history a
                        > > couple of centuries AD in the area of the Donahue or north of
                        the
                        > > Black Sea. This is what we think we know. That is what we have
                        as a
                        > > working hypothesis.
                        > >
                        > > Two things seem obvious to me in connection with the Goth's
                        homelend.
                        > > The first is that there is a land, Gotland, that is called the
                        land of
                        > > the Goths. As far back as sources go, the land appears to have
                        born
                        > > this name. As parallels we have Sweden (the land of the Swedes),
                        > > Ireland (the land of the Irish), and likely thousands of other
                        such
                        > > names from throughout the world and in numerous languages. This
                        makes
                        > > me wonder why Goths should be such an exception, emigration
                        aside. The
                        > > second is that as one specializing mostly in Germanic
                        linguistics, and
                        > > as one who has studied both Gothic and Gotlandic, it seems
                        painfully
                        > > obvious that Gotlandic, while absorbed into North Germanic,
                        deviates
                        > > from it, especially phonologically but also in other matters,
                        in ways
                        > > which agree with Gothic. As a non-specialist in Gothic history,
                        and as
                        > > a layman in Gothodemia, I still see no reason why the Goths
                        should not
                        > > have a homeland in Gotland, where Goths still live, emigration
                        aside,
                        > > and even if their original territory was wider, as it likely
                        was.
                        > >
                        > > Sincerely,
                        > > Konrad
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • joe
                        In the March 2006 edition of National Geographic there is an article on the Celts, their history and culture. It includes a map showing where Celtic people
                        Message 11 of 15 , Mar 10, 2006
                          In the March 2006 edition of National Geographic there is an article on the Celts, their history and culture. It includes a map showing where Celtic people currently live in Western Europe..and it includes Brittany in France and Galicia in Spain.

                          akoddsson <konrad_oddsson@...> wrote:
                          Yes, but France is, admittedly, a rather large nation. Perhaps one
                          should look at provincial populations more closely, as several
                          groups in France would seem to exist as smaller cultural groupings,
                          common language aside (Basks an exception here). Consider, for
                          instance, the Gaelic population of Galitia (wrong spelling, no
                          doubt ;) From what I understand, they still speak a kind of Gaelic.
                          I discovered on a radio program that they also play some fierce and
                          beautiful Gaelic music, closely related to Irish. There are likely
                          numerous other links. Thus, I don't believe that cultures simply
                          disappear due to emigration by some members.



                          ---------------------------------
                          Yahoo! Mail
                          Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Ingemar Nordgren
                          Hear, hear! At last a sensible voice. Thank you Konrad.As you know I have already stated since long both gutar, gautar and possibly ýtar (Eutoz) and many
                          Message 12 of 15 , Mar 10, 2006
                            Hear, hear!
                            At last a sensible voice. Thank you Konrad.As you know I have already
                            stated since long both gutar, gautar and possibly ýtar (Eutoz) and
                            many Norwegians are Gothic or kindred folks (e.g. Rugii) and a large
                            quantity of them remains. The Gutar probably might have been more
                            directly involved with the Continental Goths because of geographical
                            reasons but also other Scandinavians are Gothic or else e.g.
                            Gautland/Götaland should not exist. Well, I know there is opposition
                            by certain members tovards my theories and I do not intend to try to
                            convert them. The easiest way to understand what I claim is, for those
                            other interested, to buy and read my dissertation that is published as
                            'The Well Spring of the Goths' by iUniverse and available at every
                            major netbookstore as paperback or e-book.

                            Best
                            Ingemar

                            --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@...> wrote:

                            Thus, I will grant the Gotlanders the same rights
                            > as other folks to define their own culture and see it as they will,
                            > without too much interference from the rest of us. Stating things
                            > like 'you are not a Goth' or 'this list has nothing to do with your
                            > culture' to living Goths would be like telling an Irish person that
                            > he need no apply to a list about ancient Irish or Celts, as he is
                            > neither Irish nor Celtic. Therefore, I simply offer these words in
                            > the hope that academics, and others, interested in Goths, show the
                            > living the same respect as the dead.
                            >
                            > Sincerely,
                            > Konrad
                          • macmaster@riseup.net
                            Actually, Galician (or Gallego as it is called) is a Romance language closely related to Portuguese (it s sometimes considered a dialect of Portuguese) and is
                            Message 13 of 15 , Mar 10, 2006
                              Actually, Galician (or Gallego as it is called) is a Romance language
                              closely related to Portuguese (it's sometimes considered a dialect of
                              Portuguese) and is spoken in the northwest corner of Spain, immediately
                              'above' Portugal.

                              It's actually a good example of my point of how names move around.
                              There's also a Galicia divided between Poland and the Ukraine and formerly
                              a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that happens to have the same name
                              (it's a latinization of the name "Halych" and has nothing to do with
                              Celts. The region around Ankara in Turkey used to be called Galatia (iit
                              appears in the New Testament as such) due to Celtic settlers.

                              Northern Italy was Cisalpine Gaul in Roman times and France was Gaul, of
                              course. All but the Polish region do show a relation with the ancient
                              Celts but not so much with modern speakers of Gaelic (except that all come
                              from the same source).

                              As has been pointed out, there are several place names/peoples in what are
                              now Sweden and Denmark that look a lot like "Goths" - Geats, Gotlanders,
                              Jutes and so on. Are they all the same people? maybe but maybe not.

                              There are also "Danes" scattered all over the Indo-European diaspora, from
                              the Hebrew Tribe of Dan that seems to have been one of the "sea-peoples"
                              initially through the Greek Danaans of Homer and the Irish Tuatha de
                              Danann to the Don Cossacks and so. Are they all one people? Of course
                              not ...

                              While it's nice to imagine ourselves as descended from magnificent ancient
                              peoples, sticking to the actual stuff of history is more convincing and
                              sometimes more exciting. With the Goths, let's try to stick to what is
                              actually known from the written sources and from archaeology. To me,
                              that's fascinating enough.

                              Tom macMaster


                              joe wrote:
                              > In the March 2006 edition of National Geographic there is an article
                              > on the Celts, their history and culture. It includes a map showing
                              > where Celtic people currently live in Western Europe..and it includes
                              > Brittany in France and Galicia in Spain.
                              >
                              > akoddsson wrote:
                              > Yes, but France is, admittedly, a rather large nation. Perhaps one
                              > should look at provincial populations more closely, as several
                              > groups in France would seem to exist as smaller cultural groupings,
                              > common language aside (Basks an exception here). Consider, for
                              > instance, the Gaelic population of Galitia (wrong spelling, no
                              > doubt ;) From what I understand, they still speak a kind of Gaelic.
                              > I discovered on a radio program that they also play some fierce and
                              > beautiful Gaelic music, closely related to Irish. There are likely
                              > numerous other links. Thus, I don't believe that cultures simply
                              > disappear due to emigration by some members.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • OSCAR HERRERA
                              the other speakers seem to be on track, pretty much......tho faura rodaizaim atsaila fagra god laistjana......oscar macmaster@riseup.net wrote: Actually,
                              Message 14 of 15 , Mar 11, 2006
                                the other speakers seem to be on track, pretty much......tho faura rodaizaim atsaila fagra god laistjana......oscar

                                macmaster@... wrote:
                                Actually, Galician (or Gallego as it is called) is a Romance language
                                closely related to Portuguese (it's sometimes considered a dialect of
                                Portuguese) and is spoken in the northwest corner of Spain, immediately
                                'above' Portugal.

                                It's actually a good example of my point of how names move around.
                                There's also a Galicia divided between Poland and the Ukraine and formerly
                                a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that happens to have the same name
                                (it's a latinization of the name "Halych" and has nothing to do with
                                Celts. The region around Ankara in Turkey used to be called Galatia (iit
                                appears in the New Testament as such) due to Celtic settlers.

                                Northern Italy was Cisalpine Gaul in Roman times and France was Gaul, of
                                course. All but the Polish region do show a relation with the ancient
                                Celts but not so much with modern speakers of Gaelic (except that all come
                                from the same source).

                                As has been pointed out, there are several place names/peoples in what are
                                now Sweden and Denmark that look a lot like "Goths" - Geats, Gotlanders,
                                Jutes and so on. Are they all the same people? maybe but maybe not.

                                There are also "Danes" scattered all over the Indo-European diaspora, from
                                the Hebrew Tribe of Dan that seems to have been one of the "sea-peoples"
                                initially through the Greek Danaans of Homer and the Irish Tuatha de
                                Danann to the Don Cossacks and so. Are they all one people? Of course
                                not ...

                                While it's nice to imagine ourselves as descended from magnificent ancient
                                peoples, sticking to the actual stuff of history is more convincing and
                                sometimes more exciting. With the Goths, let's try to stick to what is
                                actually known from the written sources and from archaeology. To me,
                                that's fascinating enough.

                                Tom macMaster


                                joe wrote:
                                > In the March 2006 edition of National Geographic there is an article
                                > on the Celts, their history and culture. It includes a map showing
                                > where Celtic people currently live in Western Europe..and it includes
                                > Brittany in France and Galicia in Spain.
                                >
                                > akoddsson wrote:
                                > Yes, but France is, admittedly, a rather large nation. Perhaps one
                                > should look at provincial populations more closely, as several
                                > groups in France would seem to exist as smaller cultural groupings,
                                > common language aside (Basks an exception here). Consider, for
                                > instance, the Gaelic population of Galitia (wrong spelling, no
                                > doubt ;) From what I understand, they still speak a kind of Gaelic.
                                > I discovered on a radio program that they also play some fierce and
                                > beautiful Gaelic music, closely related to Irish. There are likely
                                > numerous other links. Thus, I don't believe that cultures simply
                                > disappear due to emigration by some members.
                                >
                                >
                                >






                                You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to .
                                Yahoo! Groups Links









                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Wilhelm Otto
                                Hi Tore, Oscar, Macmaster and Konrad et al. This is about idea swapping. On one hand everyone has a right to hold any views, and on the other side if I give
                                Message 15 of 15 , Mar 29, 2006
                                  Hi Tore, Oscar, Macmaster and Konrad et al.

                                  This is about idea swapping.

                                  On one hand everyone has a right to hold any views, and on the other side if
                                  I give voice to a line of thought on a mailing what I say is fair game, so
                                  to speak. I see such a view as unconditional. If I confront your views I
                                  also stake my own, i.e. if my views do not stand the test I am prepared to
                                  try the views of the other party, at least tentatively, and the other way
                                  around. It is like comparing watches in the market. The best watch wins and
                                  winner takes al. This applies to science matters. But how do we treat belief
                                  systems? And where in the grey zone do I draw the line between myth and
                                  science?



                                  There is certainly a grey zone as we know much less than we think we do.
                                  Much of that we take for granted is just a more or less well founded
                                  intellectual construction. We imply, we presume, we consider that a
                                  statistical probability speaks for this or that. We are actually lumbering
                                  about with a back pack full of myths. This is OK in everyday life. It makes
                                  it possible for us to navigate in life. But is it good enough when it comes
                                  down to science or those areas, where we apply scientific rules? And on a
                                  mailing list we try to apply scientific methods. The general answer to these
                                  and similar questions is answered by historians, who I am not, by careful
                                  testing of every assumption on which an idea is founded. Similar sounding
                                  words are not given much credit by these historians. If you pick Goth and
                                  Gotland you could as easily pick jute and Jutland. They contain the same
                                  root of the word. And why leave out Gotaland, i.e. the south of Sweden.
                                  There has to be a well proven binding connection. Historians of this kind
                                  are found in every country. In Tore’s Sweden there are among others the
                                  Weibull brothers, Erik Lönnroth.





                                  This is but an example of method to push our knowledge a bit further. Sir
                                  Karl Popper tells us to disprove and falsify our own views. In the wake of
                                  failure we might have found something useful. According to this view
                                  intellectual improvement is a result of consecutive failures. And history
                                  teaches us that what we believe in to day is to morrow probably all wrong.
                                  What is great and important to day will to morrow probably be forgotten.
                                  Admittedly we know a lot more to day about the construction of our solar
                                  system then we did in Kepler´s times, but we are still making great
                                  improvements. So your views, as well as mine, are probably tentative. There
                                  are indeed very few matters that can described as final. Not even the Goths
                                  heritage.



                                  This process of intellectual development is intimately connected with the
                                  evolution of ideas. Thomas S Kuhn came in the early 1960´s with “The
                                  Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. There he claimed there was a sudden
                                  shift of paradigms. Gradually the old dominant one was considered obsolete
                                  and a new one was chosen. These revolutions can be triggered by
                                  technological breakthroughs, such as construction of the first telescope and
                                  we found that the heavenly bodies were not perfect and unchanging. There can
                                  be a conceptual breakthrough as the invention of calculus so laws of motion
                                  can be formulated. And there can be a breakthrough which explains older
                                  ideas as when Mendel’s genetic results proved Darwins theories. Most
                                  researchers see this to day as a Darwinian process. Teachers, researchers
                                  but maybe foremost the staffs of the scientific newspapers play an important
                                  part. This is a very slow process, you think, when you are inside it. But
                                  remember that this process is still young. It is about 180 years ago that a
                                  young man started to organize the Kings of Denmark cabinet of curiosities.
                                  He then sorted the very old things in three compartments, one for things of
                                  stone, one for things of bronze and on for iron. Eventually the concepts of
                                  Stone Age, of Bronze Age and of Iron Age were born out of this. It is my
                                  grandparents’ time. In the history of nations it is not even yesterday. It
                                  is to day. Let this process then work for a notable time and you see the
                                  evolution of science. And in this process of change some of us are slower,
                                  but others are more up to change. But history can not be an isolated part of
                                  that process!



                                  So it is doubtful that we ever will find common acceptance of facts and how
                                  they are related from times long gone, for example the heritage of the
                                  Goths. Those were times when common writing seldom took place, and when it
                                  happened it had other purposes than finding the truth. But it seems to me,
                                  with all this in mind that Heathers revision of Jordanes, which is very well
                                  considered by the leading scientists, was not entirely out of place.

                                  Wilhelm




                                  --
                                  No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                  Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.3.0/290 - Release Date: 2006-03-23



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