[gothic-l] Re: Dirk

[faltin2001]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Sunny" <sunnyjat12002 at y...> wrote:
> Hi Dirk, 
> 
> Crubezy writes about the practice of skull deformation in Europe:
> 
> "One problem is to identify the origin of the practice of skull 
> deformation.  If a possible source is believed to be some external 
> ethnic population, this could well be the Visigoths, who settled in 
> 418 in this region.  The Goths had been in contact very early on 
with 
> peoples who practiced this custom, especially during their 
migration –
>  to the shores of the Black Sea in 257-8.  Some deformed skulls 
have 
> been attributed to them: those from Feszthely-Fenekpuskza, Hungary, 
> those from Vienna, Austria, two from the Kvanj cemetery, 
Yugoslavia, 
> those from Padua and Florence, Italy (Crubezy 1990: 192-193)."




Hi Sunny,

for a more detailed article on skull deformation see Bodo 
Anke : "Studien zur Reiternomadischen Kultur des 4. bis 5 
Jahrhunderts" Weissbach 1998. Here you will find detailed evidence, 
showing that skull deformation among Goths was far less widespread 
than among Thuringians, Heruls, Burgundians and Alamans. 








>  
> Back to Getae and Goth – I was under impression that the 
term "Goth" 
> was coined by the Romans?:





The Romans used the terms Gothi/Goti/Gotti from the 3rd century 
onwards. In the 2nd and 1st century the terms Gotones and Gythones 
were used, which seem to refer to predecessors of the Goths.







> 
> Christensen does comment on the following point made by Jakob 
Grimm, 
> please note Grimm was not the last to defend this view:



Yes, but he was the last one who mattered.




> 
> "J. Grimm was the last to defend an opposing view, based on the 
> argument that the Getae are mentioned during early Antiquity.  They 
> later disappear completely, while the Goths appear in the sources 
at 
> approximately the same time.  Was it conceivable that the Getae 
just 
> suddenly disappeared?   His point is, of course, that a certain 
> people were initially referred to as Getae and later came to be 
> called Goths (Christensen 2002: 247)."




And we know now with certainty that the Getae were not the 
predecessors of the Goths. 





> 
> Waddell claims about the name "Goth", he believes it was first 
> applied by the Romans, "
the aspirated form `Goth' having been 
coined 
> by the Romans and never used by the Goths themselves (Waddell 1929: 
> 545, 584)."
> 
> Bradley writes, "[T]he name which, following the Romans, we spell 
> as `Goths' was properly Gutans – in the singular Guta (Bradley 
1888: 
> 5)."




Francisc seemed to have made a similar argument earlier, based on 
personal names containing the form 'Gut'. On the other hand the 
form 'Got', seems to be attested was well in Gothic names like 
Ostrogotho.






> 
> Rawlinson says, "Now it is almost certain that the Getae – one of 
the 
> principle Thracian tribes, according to Herodotus – are the Gothi 
or 
> Gothones of the Romans, who are the old German Guthai or Guthans, 
and 
> our Goths (Rawlingson 1880: 181)."




Rawlingson 1880, clearly did not have the knowledge that we have 
today. Instead of cutting and pasting all those outdated citations, I 
would like to ask you to back these claims up with evidence. It will 
be easy to refute this today as Fransics has shown earlier.

Cheers
Dirk 


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to US & Canada.
We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark, Canon & more.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
http://us.click.yahoo.com/kP..SB/49VGAA/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/