[gothic-l] Re: Wielbark/Goto-Gepidic culture

[faltin2001]

Dear Ingemar,

can I ask you if you read the archaeological studies of the Wielbark 
culture by Bierbrauer and/or Blischke and the work on the Przeworsk 
culture by Godlowski?

 
> You say Wielbark is autoochtonous  meaning you say it formed 
locally. 
> Well,I am not disputing it's local formation but the parts from 
which it 
> formed. 


The archaeologists that I read say that it developed from the Okcywie 
culture, meaning that it is autochtonous. BTW, you mis-typed the word 
as Keth will surely point out later;-)






There are indeed changes even inside the Wielbark-culture and 
> local differences between different parts of the culture. These 
include 
> elements traceable to Scandinavia for instance. 


As is well documented by Bierbrauer. These elements appear 'alien and 
spuradic'. They are not a constituent part of the Wielbark culture, 
according to Bierbrauer.



Peter Heather regarded 
> the Wielbark culture as a great cultic league and saw a lot of 
different 
> elements in there of different origin. 


The Wielbark culture probably did comprise of people with a distinct 
form of believe, which was among others expressed by the fact that a 
Gothic warrior needed no weapons in the after life. A fact that 
separates the Wielbark-'religion' from that of Przeworsk and of 
course Scandinavian groups.

BTW, what are the different origins according to Heather?









Accordingly there might have been 
> a number of more or less related tribes living there in unity but 
> originally coming from different areas.



That is not born out by the archaeological findings, as Wielbark 
deveoped locally. This local group may have split up at times, but 
its main elements still is based on local cultures not new comers. 




 Any culture must be put together 
> by something - it not just starts right up and down but develope 
for a 
> long time and all the time accepting influences and people from 
around. 



It certainly must have a basis, a predecessor, which is the equally 
local Oksywie culture. However, a culture does not have to physically 
come from different geograhic location. Otherwise, we would have an 
endless chain of cultures coming from somewhereelse. 





> The later Gepidic culture examined by Jerzy Ockulicz-Kozaryn was in 
any 
> way multi-ochtonous showing clearly outside elements  forming new 
> rituals, reusing old  cemetaries et c. 


I doubt that there is a Gepidic culture. The Gepids were most likely 
a part of the Wielbark culture. If it was non-autochtonous in some 
areas it means that it spread to new areas. 





This was a late and evident 
> thing, but for the Wielbark/Goto-Gepidic/Burgundian culture (pick 
your 
> choice) 


The Burgundians are not part of the Wielbark culture, their 
settlement areas were likely too far west.




in whole this must have been a long process and of course have 
> included elements from the Okshöfde/Oksywie-culture. 


Wielbark did not just include elements of the Oksywie culture, it is 
the continuation of the Oksywie culture.




A gradual 
> Scandinavian immigration during a half millenium,  mixing up with 
this 
> culture, would not show that much archaeologically because some 
local 
> habits and  material was of course accepted also by newcomers but 
there 
> still is a striking similarity between Westscandinavian burial 
customs 
> and Wielbark about BC and slightly later, and  between 
Eastscandinavian 
> and Wielbark from c:a 300 BC. 



The Wielbark culture did not exist in 300BC, it only emerged some 200 
years later! According to the latest archaeological research there 
was not continuous Scandinvaian outmigration into the Wielbark 
culture, let alone stretching over a period of half a millenium.





>The integration theory mentioned by, I 
> think Pohl, in this case sounds very interesting. 



If you stop regarding 
> Goths just as a people or a uniform archaeological culture and see 
them 
> as several peoples united by a common religious heritage, as I do 
in my 
> dissertation, this would explain that there is hard to find early 
> artefacts of uniform type. 



The interesting thing is that there are a mass of artefacts of 
uniform, distinct Wielbark style. Especially in its beginnig the 
Wielbark culture is very uniform, with very little variations.





Such occur first in larger scale when these 
> different small groups-tribes start forming a common culture like 
in 
> e.g. Cernjachov. Still the early graves can indicate a possible 
> religious, and hence Scandinavian, connection in spite of Volker 
> Bierbrauers et consortes opinion. The most part of Scandinavian 
> influence is, as I see it, the religious origin and the actual 
number of 
> Scandinavians might not have been so great to be able to settle 
these 
> traditions and form a certain position of power of at least part of 
the 
> area. 


But why then does the Wielbark culture display evidence of a 
religious and cultic practice that is completely different to that of 
Scandinvian cultures?

Why do Wielbark people built completely different houses, make 
different pottery and different dress ornaments from Scandinavians?




This could well explain Ablabius reference to Berig and 
> Scandinavia. Still the remaining Scandinavian peoples like Jutar, 
Gutar 
> and Gauts also are Goths even if they did never live in the 
> Vistula/Weichsel region. This is also Hachmanns opinion. 


Hachmann (1970) has a very ambivalent position. On the one hand, his 
arachaeological investigation shows that the Wielbark culture is not 
related with Scandinavian cultures. He thus confirms the finding made 
by Polish archaeologists, but he also believes in a connection 
between Goths and Scandinavia. 





The contacts 
> between these groups all the time remained, to judge by 
archaeological 
> finds, and I am convinced people from these folks  took part in the 
> Gothic campaigns. 


What archaeological finds show that contacts remained and what 
archaeological finds show that the Scandinavian people participated 
in Gothic campaigns. Since this is something of an outlier position, 
I would like you to be very specific. 





The question of  the Gothic language contra 
> Scandinavian languages is of subordinate significance because 
Gothic was 
> not influenced by the first language shift and hence must originate 
from 
> before the first possible emigration about 350-300 BC, when 
> East-Scandinavian burial customs match areas in the 
Vistula/Weichsel 
> region. 



Gothic must have been through the frist Germanic sound shift, if I am 
not mistaken. 




This means the languages developed in different directions from 
> around BC and locally on the Continent the old language remained. 



I thought you just said that they were in constant contact over some 
500 years? How come that their languages deveoped so differently then?




It 
> means Scandinavians coming later accepted the majority language, 
which 
> was essential to be able to communicate in an already established 
> culture. Communication was important to be able to take control of 
> leading positions e.g. About the Scandinavian languages we do 
however 
> not know for sure that they changed in own directions before 150 AD 
when 
> Ptolemaios indicates it by using the form 'Goutai'.
> 
> About the heritage of the present Scandinavian population, which 
you 
> asked about, I would presume they might have immigrated in 
Scandinavia 
> from somewhere during Neolitic time or early Bronze Age because the 
> original population up here seem to have been Saami or  related 
peoples. 



As I said earlier, this was a rethorical question. 


Overall, I stick to what Andreas said earlier, namely that the East 
Germanic people of the Goths originate from the area of the Wielbark 
culture in modern northern Poland. The Wielbark culture is 
autochtonous, just as its predecessor the Oksywie culture, which does 
not exclude outside influence. In fact, at times this influence  
might have been significant on a non-material level. 

At any rate the migration will have changed the Goths fundamentally. 
The Goths of the Black Sea area were in my view a very different kind 
of people from the Goths at the Vistula. The gradual movement of 
Suebian tribes into modern south-west Germany might be a good 
example. They started out as distinct and in some cases highly 
esteemed tribes, yet after their migration, they are a conglomerate 
of many peoples and groups, which is reflected in their name 
Alamanni. The Goths kept the name, but they were probably just as 
much a new and changed conglomerate of peoples when they arrived at 
the Black Sea. 


cheers, 
Dirk 





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Access Your PC from Anywhere
Check Email & Transfer files - Free Download
http://us.click.yahoo.com/NxtVhB/3XkDAA/_ZuFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/