[gothic-l] Re: Digest Number 534

[faltin2001]

--- In gothic-l at y..., Ingemar Nordgren <ingemar.nordgren at e...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Dirk,
>
>
> Yes I have read works of Bierbrauer (of some reason I always think
of
> another Bierbrauer by name Cromwell. How comes!?)and I also have
works
> of Godlovski.
>
> I also know  these guys claim Wielbark developed from Okcyvie.
>
> They probably are right  to a great extent but I do not buy it
quite through as do you.
>
> Bierbrauer undervaluate external renewals in the Wielbark area and
also
> refuses to accept certain traits  as anything but  genuine Wielbark
> habits when they indeed are comparable with Scandinavian.
>
> You write:"The Wielbark culture probably did comprise of people
with a distinct
> 	form of believe, which was among others expressed by the fact
that a
> 	Gothic warrior needed no weapons in the after life. A fact
that
> 	separates the Wielbark-'religion' from that of Przeworsk and
of
> 	course Scandinavian groups."
>
>
> In that both you and Bierbrauer are out sailing. That is exactly
the
> Westscandinavian burial-custom appearing in the 1th c.AD and a
> generation earlier a number of grave-fields of that type in Western
> Scandinavia are closed down indicating an possible emigration. I am
> talking about flat-ground graves with  cremations in 'brandgruben'
and
> 'urnenbrandgruben' with no weapons or other expensive gifts for
men, but
> rich gifts including knives for women. He claims it is originally
> developed in Wielbark. Still there are great similarities even in
the
> grave ceramics  with both Western and Eastern Gautland. It is of
course
> not identical which have made Bierbrauer reject it, but it is
definitely
> very similar. So all your comments about   great differences in
religion
> and  pottery in Scandinavia and Wielbark comes down to Bierbrauers
> refusal to see those similarities because they are not identical as
> regards pottery, and he means the burial custom is not important or
> special.I think otherwise and so did many archaeologists.



Dear Ingemar,

please quote some modern archaeologists who contradict Bierbrauer.
Forgive me, but Bierbrauer is a highly respected archaeologists while
neither of us is, so I go with his conclusions for the time being.
Bierbrauer has provided the most comprehensive study of the material
ever produced.

His findings are confirmed by a number of other archaeologists and
based on the findings of earlier researchers, as was shown by
Blischke. In fact, there is a common agreement among archaeologists
and most historians, which sees the origin of the Goths in the
autochtonous Wielbark culture.





> If you doubt it was a Gepidic culture Okulicz is talking about and
if you believe
>
> it's multiochtonousness depended on spreading of the original
culture it just shows
>
> you have not read Okulicz or considered what he writes.





I did read Okulicz, I just wanted to point out that the term Gepidic
culture is problematic, because it is impossible to connect the
material to the ethnic group of the Gepids in my view.





> About your remark that the Burgundians are not part of the Wielbark
culture you are quite right.
>
> I understand that you did not know that the Wielbark culture
originally was mentioned 'the Burgundian
>
> culture' in archaeological works.





Yes, in archaeological works written a 100 years ago!!!




> And, of course you are right the
> Wielbark culture did not exist  300 BC - it just started after WWII
> and before that it was called the Goto-Gepidic and earlier the
> Burgundian and the culture itself started around BC.


That is what I meant!




The
> Weichsel/Vistula area however existed all the time and I should of
> course have referred to that for early contacts and I think,
indeed,
> that I did so - at least some times. About archaeology and
Scandinavian
> contacts you have my book. Concerning the Gothic language it  never
went
> trough the first shift as far as I know but it differed of course
from
> Protogermanic if that is what you mean.



I thought that the first sound-shift created Germanic. Are we talking
about different things?






You can stay in contact with a
> lot of peoples without the same language so yours is not an
argument.
> All languages and dialects develope locally of course and so did
Gothic
> and Scandinavian after splitting. The Goths were indeed as you
point out
> a polyethnical group what concerns biology and  original languages
and
> this already from the beginning I mean. Only the religious ancestry
> created the Goths as just Goths. I strongly doubt the original
Oksywie
> and Przeworsk was Gothic in any way.



Here we agree! The Goths emerged only from around 50BC at the
earliest. We certainly cannot speak of Goths earlier than this.


cheers,
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/