Using DNA to find Goths

[Ingemar Nordgren]

Hails Arthur,

Feel assured I agree with you wholeheartedly in spite of the obstacles
that must be forced. It is worth every effort at least to try even if
I understand that Harry is correct concerning the problems with DNA
sampling and evaluation. Let us hope for more new finds of suitable
material in some future time. I also think your estimation of the time
span between Wielbark and Cernjachov-Sintana- de-Mures is short enough
to keep the original genetic markers since also, as you correctly
report, the families moved together.

Best regards
Ingemar


--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Arthur Jones <arthurobin2002 at ...> wrote:
>
> Hails alla,
>   
> 
> authurn2002 <harry at ...> wrote:
>           --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson"
<konrad_oddsson@> wrote:
> 
> > Physical remain would indeed be a good place to start, at least if 
> > they can be ascertained to be Gothic as opposed to mixed-population 
> > remains. > Regards,
> > Konrad
> 
> ---In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Authurn" <harry@>
>   wrote:
> 
> >.
> 
> >Firstly, DNA from old bones is so problematic it is not worth the
> >effort when there would always be uncertainty that they were the old
> >bones of an ancient Goth anyway. One has to look at the modern day
> >population.
> 
>   Well expressed, Authurn. I'm not so sure I completely agree with
that conclusion, although I certainly accept your premise that there
will be uncertainties in the identity. However, the comparative
evidence is or should be the highest and best corroborative,
supporting evidence available by application of state of the art
technology at the time of evidence-gathering. This would mean taking
DNA from old bones from Gotlandic graves, by all means. But a
comparison with DNA from some of the earliest graves of the Wielbark
culture, age established by best carbon and other dating techniques
now extant, would not be irrelevant at all. The aim is to provide a
point of comparison. First obtain the evidence, then argue for or
against its acceptance. It would clearly establish inferences if the
"old bone" DNA from Wielbark were found to closely parallel
>   a. modern Gotlandic residents;
>   b. Ancient Gotlandic residents;
>   c. both.
>   
> >As you say, the only place this can be done is Gotland.
> 
> No, I firmly believe that our only chance of obtaining supportive
evidence is to begin in Gotland --which I understand is soon being
done-- and then proceeding to sites where Goths were known to have
lived for extended periods of time, including parts of the Balkan
peninsula.
> 
> > By the time the Goths got to the Black Sea it would already be highly
> >admixed. Clusters of 'Goths' are unlikely to exist anymore and
> >instances are likely to be so sporadic, one would never find them. So
> >it would be a lot of work based on a very big 'if'.
> 
>   I disagree completely on this point. The evidence points to the
Gothic migration from the Vistula to the Black Sea as being rather
swift. The Wielbark culture graveyards were abandoned suddenly and
coterminously, meaning that nobody stayed behind when they gave the
signal to march.
>   Similarly, the Chernjakov culture graveyards began with the next
generation and kept growing. There would have been far too little time
for the Goths to have intermarried with Thracians, Dacians,
Sarmatians, Scythians, Alans, and others in that extremely short
period of time. Had the migration consisted solely of soldiers, well,
then that might have been a different story. But the evidence is
consistent that they all left, entire families on the road.
>   If they or a sizeable percentage of their population still carried
DNA brought from Gotland at the time of the initial Black Sea
migration, which is clearly arguable, then they would have still
carried those markers upon arrival in Moesia, Moldova, Ukraine, and
the lower Danube.
>   
> .> But, if migrations worked like that we'd
> >have much more Gothic archaeology showing different patterns of
> >development over much longer periods of time in each area.
> 
> And more Gothic archaeology will continue showing up as time passes.
There is far less governmental and cultural resistance to historical
digging than there was under the Soviet-related regimes, which had
politicized nearly all socio-cultural branches of scientific research
almost beyond recognition. New discoveries will appear. But those were
not peaceful times, and cultures had to adapt quickly and alliances
shifted rapidly for survival. 
> 
>   Or do you mean, perhaps, that Gothic archaeology cannot be used in
Wielbark to support DNA evidence, but that it can and should be
applied in Southeastern Europe to eliminate or discredit Gothic
genetic evidence?
>   It seems to me preferable to gain whatever information can be
adduced, whether through linguistics, historical records, archaeology
or DNA. Then, to present all such evidence with appropriate caveats. 
>   Authurn's arguments are all reasonable, and may even be correct.
But we now have a chance to encourage gathering all the evidence and
to see where it leads us. And I still believe that we would come
closest of all by taking samples from descendants of the Visigothic
kingdom of Spain, as they very likely kept their bloodlines as nearly
protected as the geneologies tell us.
>   Best regards,
>   Arthur A. Jones
>   arthurobin2002 at ...
>    
>   
> 
>  
> 
>          
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/