[gothic-l] Re: Wielbark/Goto-Gepidic culture

Thu Mar 14 00:38:57 UTC 2002

Dear Dirk,

I know this down was meant for Tore but I could not resist to comment.
I know you always are very confident of your own knowledge and I must
admit that you know a lot. Admirably much I must say and for that I
respect you highly. Still, my friend, there is no way being so sure for
facts, that you mostly seem to be. I think no scholar ever could be
quite sure of anything, but as most be able to point to a high degree of
probability for being right, concerning the time-span we are here
discussing.

You say Wielbark is autoochtonous  meaning you say it formed locally.
Well,I am not disputing it's local formation but the parts from which it
formed. There are indeed changes even inside the Wielbark-culture and
local differences between different parts of the culture. These include
elements traceable to Scandinavia for instance. Peter Heather regarded
the Wielbark culture as a great cultic league and saw a lot of different
elements in there of different origin. Accordingly there might have been
a number of more or less related tribes living there in unity but
originally coming from different areas. Any culture must be put together
by something - it not just starts right up and down but develope for a
long time and all the time accepting influences and people from around.
The later Gepidic culture examined by Jerzy Ockulicz-Kozaryn was in any
way multi-ochtonous showing clearly outside elements  forming new
rituals, reusing old  cemetaries et c. This was a late and evident
thing, but for the Wielbark/Goto-Gepidic/Burgundian culture (pick your
choice) in whole this must have been a long process and of course have
included elements from the Okshöfde/Oksywie-culture. A gradual
Scandinavian immigration during a half millenium,  mixing up with this
culture, would not show that much archaeologically because some local
habits and  material was of course accepted also by newcomers but there
still is a striking similarity between Westscandinavian burial customs
and Wielbark about BC and slightly later, and  between Eastscandinavian
and Wielbark from c:a 300 BC. The integration theory mentioned by, I
think Pohl, in this case sounds very interesting. If you stop regarding
Goths just as a people or a uniform archaeological culture and see them
as several peoples united by a common religious heritage, as I do in my
dissertation, this would explain that there is hard to find early
artefacts of uniform type. Such occur first in larger scale when these
different small groups-tribes start forming a common culture like in
e.g. Cernjachov. Still the early graves can indicate a possible
religious, and hence Scandinavian, connection in spite of Volker
Bierbrauers et consortes opinion. The most part of Scandinavian
influence is, as I see it, the religious origin and the actual number of
Scandinavians might not have been so great to be able to settle these
traditions and form a certain position of power of at least part of the
area. This could well explain Ablabius reference to Berig and
Scandinavia. Still the remaining Scandinavian peoples like Jutar, Gutar
and Gauts also are Goths even if they did never live in the
Vistula/Weichsel region. This is also Hachmanns opinion. The contacts
between these groups all the time remained, to judge by archaeological
finds, and I am convinced people from these folks  took part in the
Gothic campaigns. The question of  the Gothic language contra
Scandinavian languages is of subordinate significance because Gothic was
not influenced by the first language shift and hence must originate from
before the first possible emigration about 350-300 BC, when
East-Scandinavian burial customs match areas in the Vistula/Weichsel
region. This means the languages developed in different directions from
around BC and locally on the Continent the old language remained. It
means Scandinavians coming later accepted the majority language, which
was essential to be able to communicate in an already established
culture. Communication was important to be able to take control of
leading positions e.g. About the Scandinavian languages we do however
not know for sure that they changed in own directions before 150 AD when
Ptolemaios indicates it by using the form 'Goutai'.

About the heritage of the present Scandinavian population, which you
asked about, I would presume they might have immigrated in Scandinavia
from somewhere during Neolitic time or early Bronze Age because the
original population up here seem to have been Saami or  related peoples.
There are indications of among else "Celtic" influence during Bronze Age
if you look to the rock-carvings. I do not suggest I know  the state of
language then, but it could have been kind of transformation from Celtic
to Germanic language during the late Bronze Age till the Early Pre-Roman
  Iron Age.

Best wishes
Ingemar

Dirk wrote:

"there is no such thing as 'authochonous for a certain number of
centuries, than originated from somewhere else'. Authochonous for the
Wielbark and for the preceeding Okcywie culture means that they did
not come from anywhere, but developed locally in the area of modern
Pommerania and Silesia...."

"Where do you think the Scandinavians, say the modern Swedes or
Gotlanders originally came from?"

Dirk

______

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Access Your PC from Anywhere
Full setup in 2 minutes! - Free Download
http://us.click.yahoo.com/MxtVhB/2XkDAA/_ZuFAA/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/