[gothic-l] Re: Jutes and Goths

[faltin2001]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "sunnytjatsingh" 
<sunnytjatsingh at y...> wrote:
> Hi Dirk, 
> 
> "the fact that you continously quote from books, which are between 
> 100 
> and 500 years old is really curious. Especially since modern 
research 
> is more easily available."
> 
> There is nothing really curious about it.  Wolfram (1988) is 
inclined 
> to believe Jordanes.  



Not really, Wolfram accepts that some bits of it may relate to 
authentic traditions, but he does certainly not 'believe Jordanes'. 
In fact, it is not a matter of believing Jordanes, but of detailed 
philological analysis. Such a detailed analysis of Jordanes was not 
available until Christensen's book of 2002.







Christensen (2002) is apt to reject Jordanes 
> mention of Scandinavia and his mentioned of the Eastern Getae.  The 
> view of these two modern authors seem to be polar.  Why such as 
> deviation in beliefs?
> 



Christensen and Wolfram are in fact much closer than you think.




> If Christensen can go to the extent of saying the origins of Goths 
as 
> testified in Jordanes's history is fanciful, then I see no problem 
> examining the works of other classical historians, and even the 
> writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.  




Well, Christensen states that the Getica does not and can not convey 
genuine ancient Gothic history and he provides detailed analysis to 
derive the point. Authors of the 16th and 17th centuries knew really 
next to nothing about this and you may just as well ask the next best 
person on the street to give you his assessment on the issue. 







> 
> "Yes, 'Oxford 1649' gives you are clou as to the reliability of the 
> information. Such a dictionary is certainly curious, but not a good 
> source for up-to-date research."
> 
> Why?


Well, 1649 is some 350 years before the present and during these 350 
years a lot of progress was made. In fact most progress was made in 
the past 30 years. With your kind of approach you could start to 
question modern astrophysics with reference to Kopernikus. 




> 
> "Yes, as the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 
> under 'Jueten', writes, even ancient Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian 
> sources were notorious for their confusion of these names. What 
would 
> you expect from books published in the 16th and 17th century? At 
this 
> time knowledge about the late antiquity was still close to an all-
> time low."
> 
> Why?
> 



Knowlege about antiquity went into sharp decline after the end of the 
Roman empire. In fact many of the historical works of antiquity were 
lost for centuries. The serious study of antique history resumed only 
in the Renaissance, but from a very low level and with very limited 
knowledge of methodoloy and on the basis of very few resources. 
Hence, 16th and 17th century authors knew about as much about the 
Goths as an average modern school pupil, or probably less. 






> "If more prove was needed, the last bit of your quote shows that 
> Shore 
> knew bonkers about these things. Sorry for my slobby expression, 
but 
> linking Kent with Goths and Goths with runes just is too much to 
> deserve a serious deliberation. The Goths have nothing to do with 
> Britain whatsoever. To be sure, Shore may have represented the 
> cutting edge when he wrote in 1906, but you should consult the 
latest 
> literature to get a sense of what 100 years of research has come up 
> with."
> 
> Have you read Samuel Kliger's book: Kliger, S. The Goths in 
England, 
> Cambridge. Harvard University Press: 1952 ?



These theories are long discarded as fanciful nonsense. 





> 
> "On the Goths, you could look at P. Heather's and H. Wolfram's 
books. 
> On the Germanic people in general, you may want to consult M. Todd 
> and H. Wolfram or A. Lund."
> 
> Here are some quote by Heather and Wolfram, as compared to 
> Christensen:
> 
> Peter Heather in his work The Goths, states at in the beginning of 
> his book, "The Getica is thus the closest we will ever come to 
Gothic 
> History as told by Goths (Heather 1996: 13)."
> 
> Now Christensen (2002) suggests the exact opposite – who do we 
> believe?




This is not the exact opposite at all. The Getica is certainly the 
closest we will ever come to Gothic history as told by the Goths, yet 
the problem as Christensen presented it is that the Goths did not 
tell very much. 








> 
> Wolfram writes, "Does this mean, after all, that the Goths 
originated 
> in Scandinavia? Reinhard Wenkus had already given an answer, which 
> ought to be slightly changed: not entire peoples but small 
successive 
> clans, the bearers of prestigious traditions, emigrated and became 
> founders of new gentes (Wolfram 1988: 39)."
> 
> Now Christensen (2002) suggest that an incursion to the mainland 
from 
> Scandinavia, as testified by Jordanes is probably not likely, 
neither 
> is the origin from Getae.  The author cites Isidore of Seville who 
> never seems to mention a Scandinavian connection regarding Goths – 
> who do we believe?
> 
> So what light has modern scholarship shone on the origin of Goths?  
> 
> The reason we are all here is because we are not satisfied about 
the 
> origin and progress of the Goths. 




You should not just blindly believe any of them. Just read their 
accounts and their argumentation and make up your own mind. The whole 
thing is a progress. Wolfram anaylised a lot of sources and evidence 
from one angle and Christensen did probably the most detailed 
analysis ever of mainly one main source. Perhaps Wolfram will 
incorporte Christensen's findings in up coming work. Hence, it is not 
a matter of whome to believe. 






 I believe in leaving no stone 
> unturned in this process. 



You are welcome to do this, but you won't find wisdom in 16th century 
books dealing with the Goths since they had only very limited 
knowledge about them.

Cheers
Dirk



> 
> Just the mere fact that classical writers such as Dexippos, 
Orosios, 
> Josephus, Cassidorus, Jordanes and Isidore of Seville mention that 
> the Goths were  "Scythian" or "Getae" leaves me ample room to 
examine 
> this aspect.  Best Wishes,


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges at Myinks.com - Save 80%. Quality inkjet cartridges &
refill kits! FREE s/h on $50 orders to the US & Canada. Fast shipping.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/hwZBYB/zoVGAA/ySSFAA/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/