[gothic-l] Re:

[faltin2001]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Sunny" <sunnyjat12002 at y...> wrote:
> Dear Albareiks and others, 
> 
> First of all, I appreciate your fair-mindedness and objectivity in 
> this discussion.  We are not here to cause problem, simply learn 
more 
> about the origins of the Goths, which has been shrouded in mystery 
> since Jordanes' Getica (why not Gothica? Jordanes was a Goth 
> himself).  In any event




It is called Getica, because the learned but wrong perception of the 
time was that the Goths are the Getae. If you read the Getica you 
will find that Jordanes/Cassiodorus in their search for an origin for 
the Goths identified them with three different groups which had 
similar sounding names, the Gautai, the Getae and the Gog and Magog. 

Also, Jordanes' ethnic background is not quite as clear. Some 
scholars have regarded him of Alanic origin, or mixed Alano-Gothic 
origin. At any rate the fact that he did grow up in a Gothic millieu 
but nonetheless knew very little even about relatively recent Gothic 
history is a good pointer to the value and degree the carmina prisca 
was extant and useful.







> 
> "Sunny and Ravi have been arguing not that the Goths were Jats, but 
> that the
> Jats and Goths are both descendents of the Getae. Why have you 
tried 
> to
> twist their argument?"
> 
> Precisely.


I never twisted this argument, I only simplyfied it since arguing 
that the Goths are Getae and that Getae are Jats is not much 
different in my view from arguing that Goths are Jats. 



> 
> "Though I do not agree with Ravi and Sunny, I do admire their
> spirit of open mindedness and their exploration of different ideas."
> 
> Neither am I completely bent on the identification between the 
Goths 
> and Getae, or the Goths and Scythians, but the shear fact that 
> classical writer like Dexippos, Orosious, Cassidorus, Isidore of 
> Seville, Jordanes, etc. mention the Scythians or the Getae and that 
> as Dirk suggests many well-respected writers up to present have 
> been "misled" shows there must by some reason for Pinkerton, Grimm, 
> Rawlinson, Tod, Kephart (1960), etc. to make their identification. 


Up to the present? Which mainstream and reputable author makes this 
identification? The authors you mention above belong mostly to the 
18th and 19th or early 20th century. Again, I strongly recommend that 
you look at the evidence provided by modern mainstream research on 
Gothic history. 




 I 
> don't think we can close the door on the Scythians, they had 
> incredible mobility as horse-mounted nomads and left very little of 
> Eurasia unexplored.  



Ok, but then provide evidence please not old quotes. Otherwise this 
will never be a discussion.





> 
> Even the most modern writers namely Wolfram (1988) and Christensen 
> (2002) can't close the book on the Getae or Scythians.  


Neither Wolfram nor Christensen would (in their wildest dreams) argue 
that the Goths were ethnic Scyths.




 Dirk is 
> certainly not the first to slam the door shut on Scythians - much 
of 
> modern scholarship suggests that the classical writers were guilty 
of 
> manufacturing history. Hogkin and Mierow, for example, have 
suggested 
> this and actually rejected portion of the Getica as erroneous.  In 
> response, Calvin Kephart writes rather emphatically, "Cassidorus 
was 
> correct in identifying the Getae of Northern Thrace and chief 
western 
> Scythians (other than the Skolotic Kimmerians) after 634 BC as the 
> Gothic nation, and it was erroneous for both Hodgkin and Mierow to 
> reject chapters V-XIII of the Getica as a source of Gothic History 
> (Kephart 1960: 466-467)."  



Yes, does Kephart provide any evidence as well? You are still and 
simply quoting (outdated) claims made almost 50 years ago. What 
needed is evidence. On what basis did he make the claim?



> 
> A little more recently, Littleton and Malcor, in a rather 
interesting 
> and controversial book on Arthurian Legends entitled From Scythia 
to 
> Camelot, argue that the core of the Arthurian legends were actually 
> Iranian and came to Europe from the Sarmatians and Alans; they 
> respond to a claim by author Goffart:
> 
> "According to Goffart, the Romans thought of the Goths as 
`Scythians' 
> because they inhabited and used `Goth' as a new term for the same 
> people instead of thinking of a new people on the old land.  In 
> actuality the Romans may have known what they were talking about, 
> given the number of Sarmatian and Alan tribes that were allied with 
> the various tribes of Goths (Littleton and Malcor 2000: 27)."



Well, this does not state that the Goths were Scyths. In fact, we 
know that they were not Scyths but certainly had contact with Alans 
and Sarmatians. Nonetheless, Goffart's position that the term Scyths 
was applied to the Goths out of a geographical definition, just 
disregarding the linguistic definition is certainly correct and 
widely accepted,  since we know that the Goths were a Germanic people 
on the basis of their language their names and their material 
culture. 






> 
> So were the classical writers guilty of manufacturing history or ---
?



Absolutely, the hard part is only to identify the real history in a 
whole lot of misunderstandings, fabrications and propaganda. 

Cheers
Dirk 


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Naturally Painless & Spray Away Backaches & Joint Pain. $19.97
http://www.challengerone.com/t/l.asp?cid=2867&lp=m331.html
http://us.click.yahoo.com/tJIe0D/79VGAA/ySSFAA/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/