[gothic-l] Re: Tracing the Eruli

Sun Dec 29 01:07:20 UTC 2002

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Troels Brandt <trbrandt at p...>"
<trbrandt at p...> wrote:
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk at s...>"
> <dirk at s...> wrote:
> ..........
> > The presence of ethnic groups on the basis of isolated
> archaelogical
> > finds is very difficult to justify. By the same token we would
have
> > to speak of large numbers of Goths or Heruls in Thuringia, even
> with
> > princely graves and their own cultural group. Yet, these kind of
> > ethnic attributions are not normally permissable, unless backed
by
> > sound historical sources.
> >
> > .............
> > Again, East Germanic horse equipment and other items have been
> found
> > in much larger quantities in other areas (especially southern
> > Germany). However, it was shown that this equipment was simply
used
> > by Alamannians. To make a strict ethnic attribution is tempting,
> and
> > archaeologists frequently subcome to this temptation if there is
> > vague historical evidence to support the linke. However, it is
> > usually not permissable and would be tantamount to arguing that
any
> > driver of a Toyota must be Japanese;-).
>
> Hi Dirk
>
> This must be your joke - or have you just obtained a doctorial
degree
> in archaeology since you are now turning all your earlier
arguments
> upside down?

Hi Troels,

no my doctorate is in mathematical economics;-)

>
> The previous years you have several times told with certainty
about
> people settling in Germany or Poland without any historical
> background.

Surely you are still under the influence of too much punch;-) I
never argued in favour of attributing archaeological groups to
ethnic groups, unless there are strong other indications to support
such an attribution.

>Since you changed your Yahoo profile

I have not changed the profile, but it was changed when I
was 'dragged' into a professional academic group related to
economics. I don't like it either :-(  but I am still surprised that
you are bothered by it.

you have brought up
> doubtful historical speculations - some of them based on a few
> personal names

So far the field of 'doubtfull speculations' was mainly worked by
you, but I like some examples of these  rather insulting allegations
otherwise I will assume that it is still the Christmas punch ticking
away:-)

- to indicate new migrations, and you are now
> following the Swedish archaeological school pleading that
archaeology
> does not tell about ethnicity - making the Swedes free to declare
> their Vendel Culture to be the Lost Atlantis developed by local
Svear
> (nearly a joke too).

I don't get the joke. Perhaps I should have some punch too:-)

>
> Regarding your Toyota-simplification: Eastgermanic finds in their
own
> surroundings, where we know they operated according to history and
> influenced their neighbours, should not be surprising and do not
> eliminate the significance of relatively large finds in a few
places
> along a travel route more than 1.000 kilometres long,
> -if such finds do not appear at the trading places nearby,
> -if there is no spread,
> -if the equipment is of a kind not earlier used in the region, and
> -if other tracks point in the same direction.

By the way the 'Toyota-story' is a commonly used example by
archaeologists and the four points that you made up do not discount
the dangers linking material cultures to ethnicity.

> But let us wait and see. They are still escavating and the new
finds
> are not published yet.

Yes lets see.

>
> I have noticed, that George was provoked to continue our eternal
> discussion about the Heruls of Procopius going to Thule, and that
> your claims once again were eliminated.

Damn, I missed that bit:) No kidding Troels, why do you once again
assume such a hostile, agressive  and polemic position. After all,
all this is highly insignificant, just interesting (to us at least).
It does not matter a bit, if Heruls moved to Thule in reality or
just in Procopius' head.

We have to realise, that this
> hyphotesis does not depend on a single detail, but on a long row
of
> independent, parallel indications from different disciplines
leading
> to the same result - with relatively few indications against - and
no
> stumbling blocks.

So far you have dismissed all the stumbling blocks without much
argumental support.

If a stumbling block is found also the final
> conclusion could be discussed here, and of course in other cases a
> single element and a new aspect shall be tested and twisted - as
> above. However this will not have significant impact on the
> conclusion and it makes no sense every time to repeat the
Procopius-
> exercise (though important) or our view on the final conclusion -
> which most listmembers already know and are tired to hear (avaible
in
> the archives).

Maybe it is just you who is tired of hearing arguments which clearly
point away from your theory? If so just not bother interfering, just
leave me and George exchange a few words, that is all it is. I think
what is really tiring is the polemics that your resort to. We surely
have heard those before.

Dirk

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/