[gothic-l] Re: Francisc

[sunnytjatsingh]

Hi Francisc, 

"For classical writers, Goths were "Scythian", Huns were "Scythian", 
etc. They used the term "Scythian" in a very large sense, as I wrote 
before, with the meaning "barbarians coming from north-east"."

I agree "Scythian" was used comprehensively to address to people 
coming from the geographical region of "Scythia", this was replaced 
gradually by "Sarmatia".

"For them, the languages spoken by all these barbarians did not 
matter. 
The Greeks considered all non-Greeks "barbarians", word which means 
literally "stammerer", "stutterer", because for the Greeks any non-
Greek language was not a real language, but a mere stammer 
(similarily the Old Indians called "Mleccha" all the tribes speaking 
non-Indic languages). So it was of no worth to study the languages of 
the "Barbarians". Later, adopting this model, the Romans considered 
all non-Greeks and non-Romans as "Barbarians". So for classical 
authors it didn't have any importance what languages spoke different 
kinds of Barbarians, since all these were in their view stutter, 
stammer.

Yes Barbarian is derived from something like barbarous, meaning a non-
Greek speaker.  The proud Greeks saw any language different from 
theirs as a non-Greek tongue.  

"So they didn't see the connection between the Gothi and the 
Germani, but classifed the Goths as "Scythians" taking into account 
only geographic and cultural aspects (it is known that the Goths were 
influenced in their material culture by Iranic peoples and Huns)."

The Alanic (Massagetae) culture and Gothic culture were a lot closer 
than people will admit.  There was a great deal of intermarriage 
between the two.  For example, Emperor Maximinus had a Gothic father 
and Alan mother.  Further, according to Musset, some classical 
writers took Alans to be a branch of Goths.

What's more is both groups practiced artificial skull deformation – 
which suggests a very close association between the two.  
Incidentally, no skull deformation was found in the graves of the 
Huns, leaving the origin of skull deformation, probably with the 
Alans.   

Cultural fusion or same people, different waves?

"But today, a very important criterion for classifying peoples is 
their languages. And we know that the Goths spoke a Germanic 
language. We also know that the Scythians and the Getae did not speak 
Germanic languages. So today it is no more acceptable to state that 
the Goths were Scythians or Getae. Of course, during their migrations 
the Goths might incorporate also foreign elements, including possibly 
Scythians and Getae, but these elements were quickly assimiled, since 
the Goths kept their Germanic language. The language used by Wulfila 
in AD 340-380 for his Bible, taking appart the Greek-Latin loanwords 
introduced by Wulfila for biblic terms, was purely Germanic, with a 
few probably Slavic elements (2-3 words). No trace of "Scythic" 
(Iranic) influence, no trace of "Getic" (Thracian) influence. Only 
the laguage of the 16th century's Crimean Goths has some Iranic 
influence (3 words out of 80 in Busbecq's list), which is explainable 
by the centuries of living together and mixing of Goths and Iranic 
Alans in Crimea (the Greek-orthodox bishopric of Crimea was 
called "bishopric of Goths and Alans")."

I believe language is an important tool, but language in my opinion 
is no proof of race.  For example, in India, we saw incursions of 
Iranian Sakas, Yuezhi, and White Huns (Turkic speaking), though all 
these groups had taken to an Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit) based script and 
tongue.  

The line Indo-Scythian kings initially had very Iranian sounding name 
like Azes, Azileses, but rapidly changed to Rudradaman and Vasudeva – 
they were Indianized.  Why couldn't the same have happened in the 
west?  The Thracian Getae as they were an early group, could have 
lost their Iranian tongue?  But did their lose their cultural 
feature?  They were considered the "bravest and most just" of all the 
Thracians by Herodotus.  They were expert horse-mounted archers – 
just like the Scythians. Even Rostovtzeff, although not believing in 
the Scythian origin of the Getae, puts forth an interesting comment:

It is a curious coincidence that the features of armament and 
costume - bow, spear, and battle-axe – which distinguish the warriors 
whom we have supposed to be Cimmerians, are reported as 
characteristic of the Massagetians, whose name recalls that of the 
Getians, a Thracian people (Rostovtzeff 1922: 41).

Rostovtzeff, M. Iranians and Greeks in South Russia. New York. 
Russell and Russel;: 1969, first published in 1922. 

So then is it impossible that the Goths could have lost their tongue 
in a sea of Germanic speaking peoples?   Best Wishes, 



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to US & Canada.
Low prices up to 80% off. We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark & more.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
http://us.click.yahoo.com/y8_tZA/6oVGAA/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/