[gothic-l] Re: Gothic race?

Wed Jul 30 09:27:30 UTC 2003

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "?????? ????????" <vegorov at i...>
wrote:
>
>
> Hi Dirk!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-
com:office:office" />
>
>
>
> I agree entirely that we have
> "to be precise with the terminology".
> Accordingly, let us make precise some
> of your terms.
>
>
>
> You stated that "the Goths...
> were East Germanic not North Germanic".

Hi Vladimir,

yes this is a well established fact.

>
>
>
> As far as I know, the North Germanic
> language separated from the Germanic
> community not earlier than in the 8th c.

I think forms of proto-Nordic were around much earlier. The second
Germanic soundshift, which created Old High German is dated to 600AD,
but a division between North, North-West, West and East Germanic had
developed earlier. Some scholars state that West and North Germanic
constituted a continuum with North-West Germanic in the middle. When
the Anglians and parts of the Saxons moved to Britian and the Danes
moved into Jutland (5th/6th cent.) this continuum was disrupted and a
clearer devision between North and West Germanic emerged. A similar
continuum likely also existed between East and West Germanic, which
in turn was also disrupted by the migration  of Semnones and
Burgundians. However, this is only theory.

> Further, what was a difference between
> General Germanic and East Germanic in
> the 2nd-4th cc. when some wielbark tribes
> migrated from Vistula to the south?
> Which linguistic documents or attestations
> do we have on that period?

Very few; we have some runic documents which give us an idea about
the status of proto-Nordic and North-West Germanic at the time.
However, we have a comprehensive Gothic source dated to about the 5th
century, which allows linguists to extrapolate the language
development backwards.

Again,
> as far as I know, a few scripts in the Gothic
> (nor General Germanic!) language of 5th-6th cc.
> How can we affirm the Goths of 5th-6th cc.
> to belong to either East or North or any other
> Germanic branch? It seems just meaningless.

Gothic is the best documented early Germanic lanaguage, with a bible
translation in Gothic, various biblical commentaries and some minor
pieces. From this it is clear beyond doubt that Gothic was East
Germanic. Or as some people would say that East Germanic was
basically Gothic. The first longer attestation of West Germanic start
in the 7th century, yet from this it is clear that West Germanic was
already different from East Germanic in the preceeding centuries.

>
>
>
> And again, again, again... Since which moment
> can we surely use the term "Goths"?

In my view, we can firmly use the term Goths from the 3rd century
onwards. This is when Greek and Roman sources start to identify a
people called Gothi.

> Were migrating wielbark tribes of the 2nd-4th cc.
> Goths or the Goths (as a nation or a polity)
> have arisen later (e.g. in the Hermanaric's times)?

The fact that the Goths were carriers of the Chernyakhovs culture and
the fact that this culture had emerged out of the Wielbark culture
leads to believe that the forefathers of the Goths had come from the
region of the Wielbark culture in what is now northern Poland. In
roughly this area early scholars like Tacitus mention the Gotones.
Whether these were the forefathers of the Gothi we can not say with
absolute certainty. While some link seems likely we don't know what
processes are hidden behind the two names.

However, scholars like Wolfram speak of multiple ethnogeneses, and
the creation of the Gothi in the northern Black Sea region was likely
a new ethnogenesis, i.e. a new people but possibly under the
domination of the former Gotones.

> I suppose we cannot even be absolutely sure that
> the migrating wielbark tribes of the 2nd-3rd cc.
> spoke a Germanic language (no matter General, East,
> West, or North) though this assumption looks most
> probable.

We have 3 or for runic inscriptions which are ascribed to these
people, including the lance blades from Kovel and Dahmsdorf. They
show that Germanic was certainly present among the Wielbark people
and given the direct link to the later Germanic Goths we can savely
assume that the Wielbark culture was mostly Germanic speaking.

regards
Dirk

>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Vladimir
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: faltin2001 [mailto:dirk at s...]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:54 PM
> To: gothic-l at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [gothic-l] Re: Gothic race?
>
>
>
>
> I think we have to be more precice with the terminology. To
identify
> the forefathers of the Goths we use a linguistic/cultural
definition.
> Thus, the forefathers of the Goths, like the Goths themselves were
> Germanic. Hence, they were certainly not Baltic. More precicely,
they
> were East Germanic not North Germanic, which may have justified the
> use 'Scando-'. Hence, instead of considering that
> a 'Scando/Baltic 'race' speaking Gemanic' migrated from the Vistula
> to the Black Sea, we know that a predominantely East-Germanic
> speaking group or groups made this migration.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------ 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/