[gothic-l] Re: Whence the Eruli

[paul mortimer]

Dear George,
                    It should be remembered that archeologists, too, are human. They can misinterpret, make mistakes, overlook important clues. They also have their "pet" ideas and have disagreements with other archeologists.
    The biggest problem with archeology is that despite the plethora of finds and the huge amount of work that is going on -- few results will ever be published. Much of what will reach the public domain may take many years before doing so.


Paul



----- Original Message -----
  From: george knysh
  To: gothic-l at yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 4:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [gothic-l] Re: Whence the Eruli



  --- troels_brandt <trbrandt at post9.tele.dk> wrote:
  I do not like to exclude
  > historians just
  > because the archaeological remains are not found -
  > concluding "on the
  > basis of the available evidence" as you mention
  > below.

  *****GK: One should naturally give historians as much
  latitude as possible. But in this particular case the
  archaeology clearly overrides Ablabius. Science never
  closes any doors of course, but until there emerges
  SOMETHING to support the Gothic historian, and given
  the fact that his thesis (Eruli=Eluri=Palus
  Maeotis)can be explained in terms of a simple Dexippan
  misunderstanding, the conclusion must be that the
  Eruli should be sought further to the northwest. That
  would hardly be the only statement in Jordanes
  requiring revision. Historians can lie or be mistaken:
  archaeological remains, unless concocted (like the
  Piltdown man) cannot. And when history,
  archaeology,and linguistics converge, as they
  frequently do, we have the best of all worlds.******

  > > *****GK: One can always hope to make new
  > discoveries.
  > > My points only stand "on the basis of the
  > available
  > > evidence".
  >>(TB) Unfortunately I have lost my notes about
  Shelov's
  > result.

  ****GK: I am working from memory also.*****

  (TB)As far as I
  > remember he wrote 35% Sarmath/Alanes, 8% other
  > barbarians while the
  > rest were Greeks and Romans - meaning that the
  > region was not totally
  > dominated by the Sarmath/Alanes.

  *****GK: The city itself wasn't. But the hinterland
  was.*****

  (TB) I do not know what
  > he ment about
  > barbarians.

  *****GK: Probably Sindo-Maeotians. I might add that
  there were also no Slavic names in the epigraphy. The
  famous "Antas" which Soviet interpreters made much of
  was a good Iranic name.*****
  >
  > (TB)What about the old town of Asov at the other
  side of
  > the mouth? By
  > the way had Don according to my map several mouths
  > meaning often
  > changing landscape and swamps around the mouth.

  *****GK: As far as I remember the archaeological
  evidence covered (investigated) all this area.*****
  >
  >(TB) I know it has been mentioned before, but when
  > reached the Goths
  > Crimea according to archaeology?

  ******GK: I believe the first sporadic evidence is
  from the mid-3rd c., as we would expect from the
  historical accounts. But there was never any "massive"
  Gothic settlement there until the 5th century, and
  then it was in the mountain areas, to the east of the
  Chersonesos "chora".*****


  __________________________________________________
  Do You Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
  http://sports.yahoo.com

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


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/