[gothic-l] Re: Andreas

[sunnytjatsingh]

Hi Andreas, 

I will repeat my statement, because it is indeed factual, not one 
classical writer who coincided with the Gothi or Goths ever called 
them Gutones, or Boutones.

The term "Gothi" were first noted in the heartland of the old 
Scythian country (not in Poland, not in Scandinavia) – this is 
geographic proof.

All classical writers called them either Scythian or Getae.

"the classification of Goths as "Scythian" is not an ethnological 
one, it is a
geographical one because the Goths, who emerged in the beginning of 
the third century and were noticed then by the Greek and Roman 
writers, were then located in Scythia and . 
Ethnically and politically, by that time there did not exist any 
longer any
Scythians."

Why this conclusion if no classical writer ever wrote this?  

"So Herodian and Cassius Dio speak generally of "northern"
tribes causing the upheavels of the Marcomannic war without giving 
any names."

This is no proof.

"Dexippus called his lost account "Skythika", because the invaders in 
Greece came from
Scythia. so the Goths came to be called Scyths, like the west 
germanic gentes sometimes
in Greek were called Keltoi, as a geographical and historizing 
classification."

Could it be that Goths were Scythians?

"Goths moved into today's Rumania in the fourth century, they took 
the room
formerly occupied (and still inhabited) by the Daci and Geti and 
therefore poets like
Claudian called them also Geti, the way he called the Franci Sugambri 
and mixed in his
poetry obolete and contemporary gentes for literary reasons. 
Historiographical sources
like Ammianus Marcellinus, our most important contemporary source for 
the the Goths
in the fourth century, on the other hand continuously use the name of 
the Goths
without mixing them up with Scyths or Getae."

Part of Marcellinus's work is lost, does he suggest a Gutones or 
Boutones origin for Goths?  We know he claims the Alans (Halani) were 
the Massagetae and that they spread to the Ganges.

"Prokopios in the sixth century speaks of 
"Gotthika ethne", a group of peoples to which he counts Ostrogoths, 
Visigoths,
Vandali 
and Gepidi, and they are bound together by their looks. their arianic 
christian
faith and 
the gothic language."

Yes very close to the same lines you cite, he says they are of Getic 
race.  Procopius also says the Alans were a branch of the Goths.  

"The connection with the Guthones or Gothones of Tacitus and Plinius 
(by the
time of 
Pytheas they did not exist yet and Pytheas does not name them) is of 
course a
modern 
one, based on the linguistic connection of the oldest name forms from 
the third
century 
cited above with those names given by Plinius and Tacitus, and the
identification of 
Goths as germanic is of course a linguistic one based on the 
linguistic
definition of the 
germanic languages from the nineteenth century."

Of course the connection is based of Jordanes mention of Scandza and 
the Germanic language, so basically find the closest tribe which 
sounds like Goth.  Even though there is only one or two lines about 
this tribe – Gutones, or Boutones (Strabo).  It is hard to see this 
tribe being the forefathers of the powerful Goths, whose habits were 
more in line with Scythians and Sarmatians.

"But there is also the archeological connection between the Wielbark 
cuture, to
which 
the Gothones belonged, and the Chernyakhov culture of the thrid and 
fourth
century, 
whose main bearers were the Goths, as is now unanimously acknowledged 
(see f.i. 
Bierbrauer, Kokowski, Mahomedow, Ajbabin and many others more, 
references in
the 
archives of this list). And this linguistic and archeological 
evidence is the
basis for the 
connection between the Guthones and the Goths."

Does Wielbark have anything to do with Goths?  What proof do they 
have that Wielbark is the Goths?  Doesn't Wielbark present problem to 
the Scandinavian origin of Goths, as testified by Jordanes and the 
Gothic oral tradition (stone rings)?  Isn't the "indicator" used to 
link Wielbark and Cernyakhov a burial that involved no weaponry? 

So at what point do you believe the classical writers and at what 
point do you note believe them?  My point of view is quite simple, I 
have full confidence in most of the writings of the classical 
writers.  No author concurrent with Goths ever suggested Gothi were 
Gutones.  Gothi were first found in Scythian territory.  They wore 
Scythian attire, and some writers (Procopius) confused them with 
Central Asian Alans (he said Alans were a branch of Goths).  They 
greatly intermarried with Alan, practiced skull deformations, etc. 
means that they were well allied with Alans.  The archaeological 
evidences (Wielbark) available are not conclusive.  So instead of 
shooting in the dark with Gutones or Boutones, I am left with no 
choice than to stick to the classics.    

"Archeology tells us that the Chernyakhiv culture emerged out of the
southernmost 
development of the Wielbark culture and expanded north of the Black 
Sea coast 
during the third century from West to East, then in the first half of 
the third
century from 
the region of today's Moldavia ito the Capathian basis and southwards 
to the
lower 
Danube. Any suggstion of a move from East to West is totally against 
the
material 
evidence."

Proof.  

Best Wishes, 



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Breakthrough Natural Health Specialties at VitaminBoost.com $20 to $40
Oral Sprays for Fast Results and Greater Absorption.
http://www.challengerone.com/t/l.asp?cid=2880
http://us.click.yahoo.com/3oMABA/muYGAA/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/