[gothic-l] Re: Digest Number 538

[faltin2001]

--- In gothic-l at y..., Tore Gannholm <tore.gannholm at s...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Tore,
> >
> >there is really not much of an interpration. Authochtonous means
that
> >a material culture developed locally and was not imported from
> >somewhere else are composed of 'foreign' elements.
> >
> >
> >
> >I don't think that you can extend an archaeological term
> >like 'authochtonous' to an ethnic term like 'Gothic league'.
> >
> >
> >
> >The authochonous character of the Oksywie and Wielbark culture
shows
> >that they have not received any significant migration or outside
> >influence, meaning that the Goths who definitely lived in that area
> >in around 0 AD will have been carriers of a local culture.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>  My point has always been that the supposed "emigration" from
> >Gotland
> >>  took place about 300 BC.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >That is extremely early for any of the cultures in that area. It
> >obviously pre-dates the 'Gothic' Wielbark culture by some 300 years
> >and falls into a time when the Oksywie culture and early Przeworsk
> >culture were very similar. We have no evidence that Goths existed
> >that early and given the general development of Germanic tribes and
> >cultures, it seems unlikely that they did.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>  The latest I showed about the gravefields in Gotland clearly
> >supports
> >>  this idea.
> >>  They match the gravefields of the earlier Wielbark culture.
> >
> >
> >How can they 'match the gravefield of the earlier Wielbark
culture'?
> >They are by several centuries too early. The territory of the
> >Wielbark culture is completely identical with that of the Oksywie
> >culture. There is complete continuity in population and and in the
> >deveopment of cultural markers.
> >
> >Dirk
> >
>
> Dirk,
> There is nothing in your arguments that contradict my theory and
what
> you can read  in "Gothic connections" about the supposed emigration
> from Gotland to the estern side of the Baltic about 300 BC. At the
> time you are talking about they were of course authochonous.
>
> The problem with your German sources is that these Germans are very
> knowledgeable I don't think their command of the Swedish language
is
> so good that they have been able to analyze the Gotlandic
archaeology
> which differs very much from the Swedish one.
> Most of the Gotlandic archaeological material is in Swedish.
>
> Tore
> --


Tore,

I think that this is a very weak argument. Any scholar dealing with
this subject will have to make sure that he can access all the
relevant literature, be it in German, Polish or Swedish. If you want
to attack the findings of these scholars on the basis that their
language skills are insufficient to access all sources you will have
to provide clear examples where this is the case. Also, as the
article by Blischke shows, Gotland was the first target of interest
when scholars tried to find the origin of the Goths. So that material
will have been well studied.

The other thing to consider is that migrations 'usually' are
detectable in the archaeological records. Hence, archaeology can
easily demonstrate the gradual shift of the Wielbark culture from the
Vistula to the Ukraine and even the migration of Goths to Pannonia,
Italy and Spain can be traced in the material culture. Why then, we
should ask, is the supposed migration from Scandinavia or Gotland so
illusive.

You might say, because it was a gradual migration of small groups
over a longer period of time, it did not leave any significant
traces. Yet, that is also true for the shift from northern Poland to
the Ukraine. This process lasted at least 100 years and is better
described as gradual shift of small communities rather than a mass-
migration.

Also, you might say that the supposed migration from Scandinavia took
place much earlier and traces may have been lost over time. However,
the movements of the Przeworsk culture into the Wetterau some 300 to
200BC is well documented, so is the migration of the Poienesti-
Lukashevka people (Bastarni) from Jastrof areas into modern Romania.

Finally, you could say it was a migration over the sea, which for
some reason dispersed the traces. Yet, the Angles and Saxons who
migrated to Britain also crossed the sea and left strong evidence for
their arrival.

Overall, I think you would always be able to find evidence for
contact and a certain cultural exchange between areas that are
geographically linked, but that is not the same as proving or even
detecting a migration.

Dirk





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Access Your PC from Anywhere
It's Easy. It's Fun. - Free Download.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/BxtVhB/7XkDAA/_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/