[gothic-l] Re: Re; Dirk

[faltin2001]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Sunny" <sunnyjat12002 at y...> wrote:
> Hi Dirk, 
> 
> "It is called Getica, because the learned but wrong perception of 
the 
> time was that the Goths are the Getae."
> 
> Learned, but wrong?  Where's your proof?





The proof was set out for you by Francisc, but you can find it in 
great detail in all the books that I have pointed out to you, not 
least in Christensen. He shows, as a by-product of his main argument, 
that the Getae and the Goths have nothing do to with each other. We 
know that the Goths were Germanic speakers, we know that they were 
the carries of a material culture which originated in the Germanic 
areas and if we believe the link to the Gothones we have historical 
evidence (Tacitus) that confirms that they are Germanic. 






> 
> "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."
> 
> I thought earlier you wrote that there is NO linguistic proof 
behind 
> Getae and Goths: 





This is no linguistic proof, but a superficial name similarity, as 
Francisc has pointed out to you earlier in considerable detail. 





> 
> "Not true, Francisc has provided the linguistic argument, I have 
> pointed to the literature which would have easily answered all the 
> questions, and indeed would have made this discussion obsolete."
> 
> and now "similar sounding names"?   You know, Gog and Magog of the 
> Rabbinical tradition seems peculiarly similar to Getae and 
> Massagetae?  Thoughts?



Exactly, 'similar sounding names', this is not linguistic proof. 
Instead, it shows that Cassiodorus had nothing really tangible to go 
by. Hence, he went through the available sources, including biblical 
texts, and ancient histories and geographies trying to find names 
that suggested a link to the Goths. Note this has been down a lot in 
the past and later authors would draw wrong links between the god 
Thor and Troy or the Asen gods and Asia. These are folk etymologies.



> 
> "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."
> 
> Yes some say he was a Goth, others say he is of mixed ancestry 
> Alan/Goth.  I think Mierow claims that Jordanes was certainly a 
Goth, 
> and this is confirmed by Heather.  
> 
> "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."
> 
> Actually, these are two very different concepts.  Accepting that 
this 
> theory is true, just for kicks, no one would ever be able to say 
the 
> Jats are Goths.  One can say that Jats and Goths are originally 
> descended from a common origin – can't be equated – one group 
> migrated west, the other migrated south – destinies were shaped by 
> regions of completely difference social customs, geography, 
weather, 
> political history, resources, etc.  However, still a common Indo-
> European, but according to the above theory, a less generic and 
more 
> precise Getic origin.  




Yes, but I cannot in every half sentence reproduce this line of 
thinking above. Hence, the simplification which only means to show 
that you try to find a link between Jats and Goths. 




> 
> "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."
> 
> Kephart, C. Races of Mankind Their Origin and Migration. New York. 
> Philosophical Library: 1960.




Not exactly an authortive book on Gothic history and certainly 
not 'up to the present'.


> 
> Dhillon, B.S. History and Study of Jats with References to Sikhs, 
> Scythians, Alans, Sarmatians, Goths, and Jutes. Ottawa. Beta 
> Publishers: 1994.





This Dhillon is that the author who provided this funny list of 
supposedly German Jat clan names? 




> 
> Also, does "mainstream" mean that is it correct?  




Cyncical question I suppose? Well, mainstream means that it is the 
most widly accepted view by the leading scholars in the particular 
field. None of the authors you mention above belong to the group.




> 
> "Neither Wolfram nor Christensen would (in their wildest dreams) 
> argue 
> that the Goths were ethnic Scyths."
> 
> There is no such thing as an "ethnic Scyth" – Scythia/n is a 
> geographic term.  Getae is an ethnic term.  



The name was also used in an ethnic sense. There are plenty of 
examples for that. 





> 
> "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?"
> 
> 1960 is outdated?  He dedicated an entire chapter of his book to 
the 
> Getic or Gothic nation.  



That is interesting that he dedicated so much room to the Goths and 
Getae. Yet, is that proof for you that he is right? My question was 
what evidence does he have, not how many pages he wrote.









> 
> Alexander the Great fought against the Massagetae while in Central 
> Asia around 330-328 BC) and as a result developed new military 
> tactics from the Macedonian.  T. Sulimirski says more precisely in 
> his book The Sarmatians: 
> 
> "The destruction by Alexander the Great of the Achaemenid (Persian) 
> monarchy and his subsequent conquest of Bactria and Sogdiana in 330-
> 328 BC also influenced the history and development of all the 
peoples 
> of Central Asia. Neither the Chorasmians nor the Massagetae were 
> subjugated by Alexander, but as a result of having to fight against 
> the highly trained and organized Macedonian army, they developed 
new 
> military tactics using armoured cavalry, the `cataphracti'. Some 
> authors think that the Massagetae owed their conquests solely to 
the 
> use of this armoured cavalry against weaker adversaries (Sulimirski 
> 1970: 81)."
> 
> This cataphracti lead to a great expansion of their culture and 
quite 
> possibly the mechanism behind their early exploration into Europe.  
> Sulmirski wrote, "In the fourth and third centuries BC, the 
> Massagetae subdued nearly all the nomad tribes of Central Asian 
north 
> of the Macedonian frontier, eastward to the Tien-Shan Mountains, 
and 
> possibly many tribes of the Kazakhstan steppes; this led to a 
> tremendous extension of their culture which to a great extent 
derived 
> from that of Achaemenid Iran (Sulimirski 1970: 81)."  Therefore, it 
> is possible that the Getae and Scythian mentioned by the classical 
> writers were the Massagetae.  This is probably why G. Ekholm and A. 
> Alfoldi, ironically, of the University of Uppsala (Sweden) and the 
> University of Budapest, respectively, wrote, "This has been 
> demonstrated by linguistic evidence: even the name of the Getae is 
> the abbreviated form of a Scythian title, which appears to have 
> originally designated an upper class among the Scythians (Ekholm 
and 
> Alfoldi 1954: 86-87)."  




Does this have anything to do with the Goths?








> It is also important to note that Massagetae were in existence 
during 
> Herodotus's times and he claims they are like the Scythians and for 
> this reason classified with the Eastern Scythians.    
> Further, what can explain the groups such as the Tyrigetae of Getae 
> of the Dniester River, the Euergetae or "Good" Getae, the Massa-
Getae 
> or "Great Getae", the Frozen Getae, etc spread out from the Baltic 
> and the Balkans to Central Asia and Afghanistan?
> Also, as mentioned before, classical writers such as Dexippos, 
> Orosios, Josephus, Cassidorus, Isidore of Seville and Jordanes 
> mention that the Goths were "Scythian" or "Getae" were they all 
wrong?



No they were not wrong, they just used a means of identification 
which is no longer acceptable today. Any barbarian living in the 
south Russian steppes could and would be called a Scyths. They had no 
real knowledge of linguistics and archaeology, which meant that their 
means of identification was geographical and derived from older 
sources. Hence, a Herul (I suppose you don't argue that they are also 
derived from Getae and related to the Jats?) living north of the 
Black Sea was a Scyth in Greek and Roman writing, although they had 
come from the Germania (like the Goths), spoke Germanic (like the 
Goths) had Germanic names (like the Goths) and a Germanic material 
culture (like the Goths). 







> Even in Scandinavia, Procopius seems to treat the Gauts, as 
Scythians 
> with mentioning their veneration of Ares.  Cassidorus even mentions 
a 
> Scandinavian people called Gautigoths?  



See Christensen and Hachmann on this term before jumping to any 
conclusions. 






Further, Wolfram writes, "The 
> Greek geographer mentions the Gutae, Goutai, as one of the seven 
> peoples inhabiting the island of Scandi-Scandinavia (Wolfram 1988: 
> 37)."
> In The Geats of Beowulf, a Scandinavian chronicler wrote the 
> following about the Scythian origin of Scandinavians:
> 
> 
[C]ertain tribes
., when they had migrated from Scythia into this 
> region, called it Scythia, as if it were worthy of the name of 
their 
> first country [and] Moreover, those tribes
. for some reason
. were 
> called `Getae'
. [and] were also called `Massagetae' after they 
> entered this region. Then
. when the name had been changed, those 
who 
> were formerly called `Getae'
 [were]
afterwards
. [called]
. 
`Gothi'
 
> (Leake 1967: 93-94).




Hold on a second please. What is that source 'The Geats of Beowulf'? 
who is that Scandinavian chronicler? What time frame are you talking 
about?




>   
> Though, you dislike my citing old work, in the 1687 work Zalmoxis - 
> First Legislator of the Getae, by Lundius, written at the Upsala 
> Academy of Sciences, the Scythian or Getic origin of the Goth and 
the 
> Swedes is attested:
> 
> 
[T]he Getae, who are the same with Goths and Scythians
.The ones 
in 
> Thrace were called Getae, later in Procopius's time were called 
Goths 
> and in older times they were called Scythians
. It is worthy 
> retaining that unique truth, namely the Getae and the Goths were 
one 
> and the same people and they were also called with the name of 
> Scythians
. Therefore, they are called Getae, Gothones, Gothini, 
> Getar, Gettar, Jettar, Jottar, Gautar, Gotar
. the Masagets are 
> Scythian too
. Through the art of wielding the bow and arrows our 
> ancestors have stood out from other peoples, as our national 
history 
> confirms it to us
 Joannes Messenius recounts more ample the 
> Scandinavian Goths: `The ancient ones called those nations, the 
> descendents of which have populated the most part of Europe and 
Asia, 
> rather Getae than Goths.' (Lundius 1687: 8, 9, 15, 21, 28).
> 
> Here is it interesting to note that the he called the Massagetae, 
> Masa – Gets.  He also noted that the Goths, Getae, and Scythian 
were 
> well known archers.







Sunny, I think at least at this point I realise that we have to agree 
to disagree. Your drive with which you persue your aim of showing 
that the Goths are linked to the Indian Jats is commendable, but I 
really think that you are going about it the wrong way. Not that you 
would not come eventually to the right conclusions, but it may take 
you some 300 years;-)

Once again, authors like Lundius had practically no knowledge of 
ancient history relating to Goths or Getae. They used Jordanes in a 
literal word for word sense. However, even this literal application 
was flawed by their own propagandistic aims, namely to agrandise the 
Swedish king. Lundius like many before and very many after him, well 
into the 20th century, picked and choose what they liked from the 
Getica, without full analysis and understanding. 

You claim that you just want to learn what really happened. To this 
end I recommend that you read Heather, Wolfram, Hachmann, Schwarcs, 
Bierbrauer, Kasanski and Christensen. These all all reputable 
scholars and real experts on the Goths and from them you can learn 
that the theory that Goths are decended from Getae and linked to 
Indian Jats has not a leg to stand on. From my part, I regard this 
thread as closed since I am no longer meant to be active on this list.

Dirk 



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to US & Canada. Low prices up to 80% off. We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark & more.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
http://us.click.yahoo.com/GHXcIA/n.WGAA/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/