Getae and Dacians? Are they the same? Or is this unknowable?

[diegis]

This thread is a great read. Thanks for mentioning so many sources.

Also can we really have swarms of "Germans" (Franks, Alemanni, Goths, Burgunds, Vandals, etc. - for most of them there were postulated groups of tens or hundreds of thousands) flooding from some plentiful spring somewhere in Central or Northern Europe? Can we imagine hordes of Xiongnu (as some scholars assume) following their leaders some 5000 km west, just to find a new home near some Pannonian swamps? How many of the medieval European crusaders didn't reach their much closer destination, with all the apparent enthusiasm and having definite targets?

I have wondered about how Northern Europe managed to produce such a large excess population, given the agricultural conditions there. Earlier historians contrasted the "impoverished" soil of Germania with the relative fertility of Gaul, Iberia etc., and Caesar mentions vast stretches of uninhabited land. Not that Germania was literally impoverished; it produced amber and other things of value, but the one thing it seems to have lacked was the fertile soil needed to support a large population.
Did the weather change, or their agricultural methods or something else? Or were those tribes around 300 AD not really migrating by necessity, but just invading by choice?
Or maybe I just have the wrong idea about the population that could be supported there at the time.
.

My opinion is (from what i read here too) that a smaller tribe manage to make a coalition of other diferent tribes (mixing peoples of diferent ethnic origins) under an umbrela of a name, all those peoples having the same interests (a better life, becoming like Romans, becoming Romans, or to take a piece of the Roman "cake"). Times was hard back then, Roman empire already started to crumble from the inside, after they manage to "clean" the Europe of other powers (Dacians, Greeks, Celts, Germans wasnt that intersting as make them a province) and spread their culture and lifestyle all over, so now everybody wanted to live like them, but the empire wasnt able to sustain itself anymore.

[diegis]

Not sure from which come this Getae name, but greeks also used the term "Keltoi" for Celts, even if i dont think Celts ever call themsleves like that.

I get your point about the term Getae, but the first line of Caesar's De Bello Gallico says:
"All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in ours Gauls, the third."

The only confusion come with Masagetae tribe, who had the Getae name in it, but have iranic elements too (some rulers name, etc.). Most probably this was a mix betwen a Getae/Dacian tribe and a Scythian one. Similar views are for ex. about Cimbri and Teutoni, as being a Germano-Celtic mix, or Bastarnae (the same).

Let's not forget the Thyssagetae, who are really hard to pin down, but probably lived somewhere near the southern Ural Mountains.

Hello Justin, and thank you for correction. And yes, from what i read now, Celts seem to be a a name of one celtic tribe, who later expand but not all the celtic tribes was caled "Celts" back then.

About Thyssagetae, i remember i saw ones a map, forgot where, and they was located somewhere near Dniepr river, but boundaries back then was quite fluid, especialy in those stepes areas in north of Black Sea.

[Alanus]

Hailog, Diegis and Justin

Good to have you back on the tread. You guys have a good handle on history and the various authors.

The only confusion come with Masagetae tribe, who had the Getae name in it, but have iranic elements too (some rulers name, etc.). Most probably this was a mix betwen a Getae/Dacian tribe and a Scythian one. Similar views are for ex. about Cimbri and Teutoni, as being a Germano-Celtic mix, or Bastarnae (the same).

Massagetae were indeed an Iranian tribe, but they extended from a population far east of the Dacians (the Altai) and spoke a northeastern Iranian language, Kotani Saka. My main research is ferreting out the origins of these tribes from their migration patterns and the many names they were known as. The tribes were in a constant state of flux, and the names change with whomever recorded them (Persians and Greeks). Basically the names reflect the hierarcy, ie "ruling families," or the progenitors of their gens.

Let's not forget the Thyssagetae, who are really hard to pin down, but probably lived somewhere near the southern Ural Mountains.

The Thyssagetae were closely related to the Massagetae; and you are correct in pinpointing the area below the Urals; also around the Arial Sea. The Massagetae were to the south, closer to the Tian Shan. A good source for these tribes is Strabo, who was born in Asia and knew the locations. He called these peoples the "Sacae," aka Saka, a Persian term. The Massagetae/Thyssagetae evolved through changes in hierarchy into the Alans (and probably kindreds such as the Aorsi and Roxolani). They always spoke, from beginning to end, an Iranian language, finally written down in the form of Osette, still spoken in the Caucaucus. The wonderful plus to studying these societies is discovering their relationship to the Goths and then to Britain through the Roman cavalry; and they appear to be the originators of the "holy grail" and the sword Exchalybur/Tryfing.

You both know that I strongly disagree with Diegis and Rumo on the origin of the Goths. It's not history or archaeology that confirms their Scandian origin-- it's the old songs (the Old Edda and Gotisaga). By no means did Jordanes "try" to equate Gothic roots in the same manner the Romans did with the Trojans. Jordanes copied the work of Cassiodorus, and Cassiodorus interviewed the old Amalic Singers of Songs, the keepers of their oral record of heritage. In this fashion, the family saga in the Origo Gothica matches-- exactly-- the old Scandian material. This is not theory, nor is it some kind of attempt to rewrite history for a doctorial thesis, aka as we see in the stumbling work of Peter Heather.

[Rumo]

Hi all!

Alan, I already presented a brief list of recent titles on Jordanes, however this discussion moves on, so I am selecting some quotes as basis for my further arguments:

• The source for the Gothic migration from Scandinavia is Jordanes' Getica, which is deeply problematic and certainly cannot be used as evidence for migration.(Halsall, 2007, 132-133)

• Another problem is the cherry-picking of particular episodes assumed, a priori, to represent 'Germanic' tradition. Some stories related by Jordanes are believed to represent part of the authentic Gothic 'origin myth', such as the migration from 'Scandza', the defeat of the Ulmerugi who occupied the territory where the Goths made landfall, and so on. Others, however, such as the Goths' defeat of the Egyptians, or the Gothic origins of the Amazons, are quietly left out of the discussion. It has become a key tenet of the study of antique texts that one must analyse them as unified literary compositions, written in response to specific historical circumstances, rather than as passive repositories of age-old tradition. Thus the authors of the works describing barbarian origins deliberately shaped whatever material they had to hand to make the points that they wished to make. There has been much excellent work on the different, specific and complex agenda of these writers.
  [...]
  The idea that these origines and the aspects of ethnic tradition they preserve were a specifically 'Germanic' creation is also deeply problematic. There was a long-standing classical strand of writing about the origins of the different peoples that formed the Mediterranean world. Cato's now fragmentary Origines lay at the heart of this tradition. The stories preserved by later writers citing Cato suggest that these classical origin myths shared a number of features with the supposedly 'Germanic' traditions of the post-imperial period. Aeneas, after all, was a son of Aphrodite (goddesses are also supposed to be important in the early phases of 'Germanic' myth), came to Italy by sea from a land far away, fought the locals and killed the eponymous Latinus. Seven (or eight) generations on, at the origins of Rome, stood Aeneas' descendants, the alliteratively named twins Romulus and Remus. This tradition was still alive and well in late antiquity, as manifested in the anonymous Famous Men of the City of Rome and Origin of the Roman People, both ascribed (erroneously) to Aurelius Victor. It is all too often forgotten that Jordanes himself wrote On the Origin and Deeds of the Roman People (the Romana) to set alongside his Getica (On the Origin and Deeds of the Goths). This classical tradition had a vital, but usually ignored, role in shaping the legends written about the creation of the post-imperial peoples.
  There are immense problems with the 'melting pot' use of selected elements of diverse works to create a systematic 'Germanic' tradition. That said, it is important not to reject everything contained within these sources as sixth-century and later literary fictions. It is probably going too far to suggest that Cassiodorus and the others invented all of these tales from scratch. Some probably did have their origins in legends that circulated in Germania, though we cannot now know which, or how closely they resemble their progenitors. Many stories may well have been circulating at the time that a writer composed his account and, if they were, it seems reasonable to surmise that they might have served the sorts of functions that Wolfram and others suppose in the creation of a body of tradition, the knowledge and acceptance of which was key to incorporation within a group. What this does not mean, though, is that they ever formed a coherent body of tradition, or even a single, generally accepted mythic narrative. Jordanes, for example, alludes to other stories that were circulating about the Goths. If he had only chosen to follow the legend of the Goths’ migration via Britain, in analogous fashion to Gregory of Tours’ repetition of the tale that traced the Franks to Pannonia, one imagines that the historiography of the post-imperial period would have been that much simpler and less controversial! For one thing, no one would have tried to hammer the archaeological record into supporting such a notion. Late antique authors picked and chose elements and wove them into their own creations.
  Some aspects of the ethnogenesis model nevertheless seem uncontroversial. The creation of stories, legends, and 'history' that told of how a people had come into being and of their struggle with old enemies – especially when justifying continued hostility to an out-group – are well-enough attested as part of the process of unification of groups. [...] Peter Heather clearly demonstrated that the 'traditions' represented in Jordanes’ work were not age-old but the inventions of a new dynasty. Yet subscription to the ideology manifested in such stories was a very important component of membership of the political community of the Goths and, thus, lay at the heart of the formation of this 'people'. (Halsall, 2007, 459-62)

• The basic contention of this book is that nothing in the first third of Jordanes' Getica has anything whatsoever to do with a history of the Goths. This was the part in which Jordanes described the emigration of the Goths from Scandza in the year 1490 BC, outlining their history until they became divided into two groups after the Hunnic assaults in the mid-370s - the part of his narrative that was allegedly based on a Gothic tradition, a Gothic Stammessage or Wandersage. We found no evidence to support the truth of this allegation. Where the account did incorporate authentic historical events, they had been borrowed from other historical contexts in the literary originals, and they only related the histories of other peoples. (Christensen, 2002, 318)

• Moreover, the whole discussion is expressed in the conceptual framework and nomenclature of Greco-Roman geography. When the Goths give the name "Gothiscandza" to their landing place on the European coast, they precisely conform to the concept embodied in Livy's story that Evander and Aeneas, on attaining Italy, each gave the name of Troy to his landing place. As for Scandza itself, the idea that an authentic Gothic tradition should have referred to an island of that name is no more plausible than that hoary legends among native peoples of North America should refer to the State of Alaska or the Yukon Territory, let alone to Hudson's Bay. Jordanes had a use for Scandza. The narrative momentarily pauses so that he might assure Castalius, the patron just addressed in the preface, that this island was the starting point of the history he wished to learn. Scandza mattered because it excluded the British alternative. (Goffart, 1988, 89)

• For the rest, a careful sifting of the evidence, by Heather as well as Christensen, does not confirm the belief that descent from Scandinavia was a lively memory among the Goths or the Amal family. (Goffart, 2006, 66)

So it seems that Heather is in a good company 8) and that there is doubt about the origins of Goths, about their Scandinavian origins, about the truthfulness of Getica, about those "Gothic songs" (for Goffart their mention is just "an ethnographic cliché").

You must know what I meant when I said the names of individuals within the high/ruling familes were Germanic. In the Amals we see Achiulf, Oduulf, Valamir, Vidimir, Thiudigotho, Amaliasuintha, Atahalaric, etc. until the end of the Ostrogothos. In the other ruling family (Balths) we find Alaviv, Fritigern, Athaulf, Walia, Theodoric, Frideric, Euric, etc. They all had Germanic names, and these two families can be traced back to the beginning. They were hereditary leaders, and they accepted any person from any ethnic background into their evolving society-- as long as he fought for the gens.

That's only what Jordanes has to say. Amals might have been the most important Gothic family in 6th century Italy and have mostly Germanic (but not necessarily East Germanic) names, however that doesn't mean the Goths from the 3rd century were led by Amals or only by Germanic speaking families.

Your long list of non-Gotic names is interesting, and it shows some of the cultures attached or connected to the Goths. However, Safrax was an Alan. And we see the "Romanization" of nomens, a standard social practice and also the method in which names were perceived and recorded by historians of the period.

Saphrax was a general of the Goths for Ammianus. Many others were just called Goths. Consequently I'd say it's not just about attaching or connecting to the Goths, but about being Goths.

An old axiom, still used by sociologists, states that when a lesser culture/tribe infuses into a more dominent culture/tribe, the lesser culture adopts the language of the greater culture. This was/is done for social and economic reasons; and it only takes three generations.

This axiom just doesn't work for the known history, so how can we apply it for the unknown history (that of the prehistoric Goths)?

[Rumo]

If they came from Scandia, if they worshiped Germanic gods, if they read a Bible in the Germanic language, if they themselves spoke a Germanic tongue, and if the ruling families had Germanic names? What should we think? Perhaps they were Spaniards just practicing a foreign language so they could visit the Temple of Walhalla without being too conspicuous.

But if they showed up north and west of Black Sea, having mixed tongues and names, what should we think?

The biggest bandwagon theory is that they originated "somewhere else," not Scandinavia.

Based on the same literary tradition, some learned people once believed the Danes and the Swedes came from Dacia.

Rumo swallows this stuff, but the serious scholars, men like Herwig Wolfram, who knew his subject and the languge, equated the Goths with the Gutones and the many linguistic variations. Of course, today postulating anything remotely "Germanic" is persona non grata.

Isn't actually Peter Heather persona non grata in this thread for questioning "Germanicity"?

The upside to all of this is we end up with "entertainers" like Professor Heather-- good for a belly laugh.

For Matthews, Goffart, Christensen, Curta or Halsall (to keep the list short, I could easily expand it to few dozen names) there's no belly laugh about Heather's work. Oh, perhaps they are not "serious scholars" (whatever that means, because Heather is referenced also by Wolfram) :mrgreen:

[Alanus]

Hello Rumo,

Quite the dissertation, and a good show. For brevity (and space) I'll not list any quotes from above but get right to the meat.

Most true, Jordanes added whatever he thought pertinent on top of the work of Cassiodorus. But we must look at his views in context to his own time. One of the amazing features of his work is the incorportation of the Scandzia tale. If we look at the legenday roots of the Romans, the Gauls, and the Britons, we discover the Trojan tie. Then why did Jordanes/Cassiodorus choose a rinky-dink mythical isle in the middle of no-where, with its dubious peoples and pine-studded shores? It doesn't ring very heroic at all. More like a heritage of cow-paths and bee-hives. Perhaps Heather and Halsell had their own agendas in confuting the old wives' tales, but it doesn't make them "righter." It only makes them "innovative." Please, Rumo, take a hard look at their motives. And quite frankly, to find Gothic origins in Britain is incredibly innovative.

Now, I'm an old fart. And I believe the traditions. They do hold water in a fashion. Take for instance the old theory of a Indo-European "homeland" somewhere below the Don and the Urals. Could various cultural groups actually spread out, east and west, and retain a common language and heritage. Perhaps they did. The Alans named themselves after someone they considered their "progenitor," basically the "first good and great man." Fine. That's a great old wives' tale. Then we discover in the old British Brut, that the "first man in Europe" was named Alanus. (Which places me in the tale through an accident of birth.) But how could two disparate societies come up with a progenitor with the same exact name? That is the power of "cultural memory," as I call it. It's the frisky play of those old Singers of Songs. In the same fashion, the Goths retained their knowledge of their homeland. Yes, it can be disputed by newer historians looking for a better niche, an nice fat Doctorate in History, but it cannot be confuted, only in theory. And that's what "new history" is. Theory.

Now to language and the "three generation principal." You say the "axiom just doesn't work for the known history." Please show me more than one refutiation. Bishop Ulfilas is the perfect example. He descended, third generation, from a Cappadocian core group within the Goths. Yet his name is Gothic, and he wrote his bible in the same language. (And this, in my estimation, was a far bigger accomplishment than anything done by the Roman emperors or historians of his time.) So does it not work? Want a close-up personal evaluation of how the process continues? Then look at me. My grandparents were born in Italy and Scotland, my mother was a first generation American, and I'm the second. I cannot speak a word of Gaelic or Italian, only English, the one language used by the dominent culture that all my grandparents' squeezed into. It was the same with Ulfilas and millions of people absorbed into some greater culture, no matter what culture it was.

[Alanus]

But if they showed up north and west of Black Sea, having mixed tongues and names, what should we think?

Well, for one thing, cultures tend to retain their old gods, even when their language changes, just like Christians still worship Iasus even though he's been Aglicized to "Jesus." Of course they had mixed tongues, but the dominent one was Gothic. Either that or Ulfilas was writing to an incredibly small minority.

Based on the same literary tradition, some learned people once believed the Danes and the Swedes came from Dacia.

Other learned people believe (to this day) that we all extended from the Garden of Eden. And that's the most popular "literary tradition" going, still a best seller.

Isn't actually Peter Heather persona non grata in this thread for questioning "Germanicity"?

No, he gets my boot in the cassabwa because he doesn't know one end of a steppe bow from the other. Of course, we're talking about "assymetrical" bows, not symetrical ones. :lol:

For Matthews, Goffart, Christensen, Curta or Halsall (to keep the list short, I could easily expand it to few dozen names) there's no belly laugh about Heather's work. Oh, perhaps they are not "serious scholars" (whatever that means, because Heather is referenced also by Wolfram) :mrgreen:

Well, so Wolfram did. But I'll take Wolfram to Heather, thank you. The "belly laughs" are his historical dissertatons on a TV channel that has not right to profess historicity.

What it boils down to, I gather, is that you believe some theories and I believe others. They're theories, sometimes claiming to be rhetoric, but they're still theories because it's a little late to ask a Goth where he came from or (most curiously) why he spoke an East Germanic language. (And Gothic is considered by linguists to be East Germanic, not something else.) 8)

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

If we look at the legenday roots of the Romans, the Gauls, and the Britons, we discover the Trojan tie. Then why did Jordanes/Cassiodorus choose a rinky-dink mythical isle in the middle of no-where, with its dubious peoples and pine-studded shores? It doesn't ring very heroic at all. More like a heritage of cow-paths and bee-hives.

You and I know today that Scandzia was a "rinky-dink" island in the middle of nowhere, but the ancient Greeks and Romans hadn't visited it, and they considered the edges of their known world to be very exotic and extraordinary, so maybe their story about coming from a remote island in the Baltic Sea would have actually been awe-inspiring. Remember, some say that Caesar's motive for invading Britain was simply to make the Roman people astonished that he would have the audacity to "cross Ocean."

Let's say hypothetically, a few decades after Pytheas first mentioned the island of Thule, some tribe emerged from the steppes telling a fanciful story about how they originally came from Thule. I think that to the Greeks, this sort of tall tale would have been more shocking than simply saying "we lived in the steppes north of the Black Sea."

This is purely speculation, but maybe the Gothic stories about emerging from Scandzia were just playing off Greco-Roman preconceptions about the outer edges of their known world. Stories about a warrior-class hardy enough to embark on a long journey from a remote island in the Baltic to eventually march on Italy and Spain would be pretty astonishing to contemporary Roman audiences, IMO.

I'm not saying the Gothic oral histories are tall tales, but I could understand the motivation for telling a tall tale about how their long journey began in "exotic" Scandinavia.

[Rumo]

Hello Alan,

I am abusing your patience with one more quote from an aforementioned book by Andrew Merrills (p. 121):

• If Gothic settlement in Scythia had long been recognized from the Mediterranean, the genesis of the group remained frustratingly obscure. Jordanes’ is the earliest known work explicitly to associate the Goths with Scandza and his interpretation was merely one among several. Thule and Britain were probably also cited as possible homelands of the group in near contemporary works.

So how come these historians of the Goths argued for a Scandinavian origin? The answer seems rather straightforward. Writing to a mostly Roman audience they couldn't argue for a Trojan origin because no one would have believed them. So they had to choose to argue for one of the legends circulating in their day. My own guess is these were Roman stories not Gothic stories (or better said, they became Gothic stories as the Goths became a part of the Roman empire), as it was the perceptions of the Romans that the savage Goths came from edge of the world (like the Huns), from Thule, Britain or Scandza. Jordanes worked hardly quoting Greek and Roman authors to persuade his audience. The entire geographic framework of Getica is derived from such authors and that is the first signal of non-authenticity. The "Gothic" Scandza is a quasi-mythical island as it was known in the Mediterranean world, not the land we would expect to be known by its real inhabitants, in legends or true accounts.
Another indirect evidence comes from Isidore of Seville, a learned man who lived in Visigothic Spain. He wrote on the origin of the Goths in early 7th century (less than a century after Jordanes) and he found the Goths to be an ancient people coming from Scythia. What happened to the Gothic tradition and their Scandinavian origins?
If stories from Getica were born in Gothic Italy, then perhaps they echoed some contemporary propaganda trying to counter Roman claims. The Romans viewed the Goths as barbarians from a remote and savage north, the Goths answered with a history of heroic deeds using Roman authoritative sources. So the Goths too were worthy masters of the Roman lands.

As quoted above, Halsall astutely pointed out that the advocates of authentic, ancient Gothic traditions tend to ignore inconvenient passages like V.44 where the Goths (the husbands of the Amazons) fought the Egyptians. The decision of what's authentic largely belongs to modern interpreters, so in your own words, it's also just a theory. We have no contemporary Gothic songs, nor any other confirmation that Jordanes' story was a real Gothic legend of their origins, gaining substance as they migrated southward and coagulated their identity.

Other learned people believe (to this day) that we all extended from the Garden of Eden. And that's the most popular "literary tradition" going, still a best seller.

If a view is popular it doesn't mean it's true or authentic. We have no evidence we all came from the Garden of Eden and no evidence the Goths came from Scandinavia. In both cases we have an appeal to tradition, but the appeal is much more recent than the alleged event.

Of course they had mixed tongues, but the dominent one was Gothic. Either that or Ulfilas was writing to an incredibly small minority.

Ulfilas certainly was writing for an insignificant minority, but a quite verosimile one. Goths were mostly illiterate and also it is highly unlikely Ulfilas and his disciples preached to every single soul in Gothia, between Danube, Don and Carpathians. Their audience was only a small group of Goths. Thus this episode can't prove an East Germanic dialect was the dominant or the most spoken language in the entire ?ernjachov area.

And Gothic is considered by linguists to be East Germanic, not something else

The language recorded by Ulfilas, not the language(s) spoken by the ?ernjachov inhabitants in the 3rd-4th centuries CE.

I'll be preparing another post for Getae, Thracians, Balkans and languages surviving cultural assimilation.

[Rumo]

Now to language and the "three generation principal." You say the "axiom just doesn't work for the known history." Please show me more than one refutiation. Bishop Ulfilas is the perfect example. He descended, third generation, from a Cappadocian core group within the Goths. Yet his name is Gothic, and he wrote his bible in the same language. (And this, in my estimation, was a far bigger accomplishment than anything done by the Roman emperors or historians of his time.) So does it not work? Want a close-up personal evaluation of how the process continues? Then look at me. My grandparents were born in Italy and Scotland, my mother was a first generation American, and I'm the second. I cannot speak a word of Gaelic or Italian, only English, the one language used by the dominent culture that all my grandparents' squeezed into. It was the same with Ulfilas and millions of people absorbed into some greater culture, no matter what culture it was.

Let's start with more recent examples. Romania has a significant Magyar-speaking minority still surviving (and with no signs of an imminent, fast assimilation) after a century, which would account for your three generations. However before that, the Romanian minority survived in the Kingdom of Hungary and then in Austro-Hungarian empire for many centuries. Some Romanians from Transylvania are Catholics because they lived in a Catholic realm, their dialect has a significant share of Magyar or German loanwords, they share Magyar or German cuisine, etc. but their language remained nevertheless a Romance language. If we move our focus to southern Balkans we'll find Aromanians/Vlachs, which were first mentioned in northern Greece in 10th century CE. They are still a minority today in Greece, FYROM and Albania, and even though many of them were assimilated, even though the culture of Vlachs from Greece is in most respects Hellenic (many of them actually view themselves both as Hellenes and as Vlachs) their language still survives. After a millenium!
Let's check the Albanians. Even though their origin is controversial, their Balkanic origin is not disputed. Regardless if their ancestors were Thracians, Illyrians or an unknown population, we have this group surviving for at least two millenia. In the Roman period the dominant culture was undoubtely Roman and to be sure, Latin left a heavy mark on Albanian language, but with all that Albanian is not a Romance language!


Let's move back to Thracians and Getae. In many areas of Thrace, but also north of Haemus, in the lands of the Getae, the Greek culture was dominant and highly influent, and I'm not talking only about the hinterland of the Greek colonies.

Here's a Thracian tomb from north-eastern Bulgaria, with obvious Hellenistic influences:
[attachment=3:3u707jxx]<!-- ia3 sveshtari_tomb.jpg<!-- ia3 [/attachment:3u707jxx]

Another tomb from central Bulgaria:
[attachment=1:3u707jxx]<!-- ia1 kazanluk_tomb.jpg<!-- ia1 [/attachment:3u707jxx]

Here's a Thracian inscription in Greek script:
[attachment=0:3u707jxx]<!-- ia0 ezerovo_ring.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:3u707jxx]

Here's a fragment of a vase found in modern Romania, bearing an inscription in Greek. It belonged to a Getic(?) king:
[attachment=2:3u707jxx]<!-- ia2 thiamarkos.jpg<!-- ia2 [/attachment:3u707jxx]

Were the Thracians and the Getae speaking Greek? Certainly some of them were, but most of them were not. Was Greek the dominant or the most spoken language between Carpathians and Aegean Sea, between central Balkans and the Black Sea coast? No.
And this Hellenic influence lasted many centuries, not just three generations.

[Alanus]

Back to you, Rumo

BUT the Thracians and Dacians were NOT TRYING TO FIT INTO GREEK SOCIETY. They were only INFLUENCED by the Greeks. There is a huge difference. As opposed to this, the "joiners" (and there were many!) into Gothic society wanted to, HAD to, fit into the gens. The gens was the all. If you couldn't navigate within the politics and economics of the gens, you lost. You never went anywhere in that society. For this reason, just as my grandparents did, the newcomers needed to learn the language of the dominent (call it "royal") clique. I think we are talking about two different causes and effect, Influence and Absolute Need.

Actually my tongue was in cheek when I mentioned why Ulfilas' bible was written in Gothic. He was trying to reach All the Goths, not just the hierarchy. Primarily he was an evangelist; and the many presbyters who preached north of the Danube attest to this philosophy. He wanted not to preach to the choir, but to all of "his" people, the very and only reason he translated the bible from Greek.

This was not an isolated phenomenon but a full scale evangelism, just as Bishop Amantius later conducted with the Alans in Pannonia. In Gothia itself, we find two persecutions aimed at stamping out Christianity, first by Aoric and later by his son Athanaric. This latter purge appears to have been the reason that Fritigern recieved help from Valens and the riparian troops stationed at the Danube in the very early 470s. This purge was a hot one, and it attests to a growing Christian populace within Gothia. We had torchings, one church (tents really) burned with its presbyter, another torched with the entire laity perishing. We find drownings and stonings. So the bible of Ulfilas was written for a "mass" audience (pardon the pun :lol: ), even though most Goths were illiterate. It was the tool of evangelistic presbyters.

But the fact is many Goths could read, perhaps both Latin and Greek. Both Athanaric and Fritigern navigated through negotiations with the Romans on several occasions. Even Aoric (who lived for some years in Constantinople) may have been literate. Both Safrax and Alatheus were at least versed in Latin (perhaps even Persian), and Alaric was fluent in it. We tend to think of them as "barbarians" but there was a sizable Gothic population living in Constantinople prior to the 5th century, and Constantine's royal guard (the Scholae) was made up of Tyrfingi.

The other point I want to touch on is the Goth's Scandia origin. Your research is commendable. But, like the authors you're quoting, a very important point has been missed by looking at and referring ONLY to Greek and Roman sources. An entirely seperate group of links arrived from Scandia itself! How can this be explained, if the Goths had no old cultural ties to the north? (an idea that is only a theory) I have mentioned the Old Edda and the Gotsaga, both of which were formed within a barbarian society outside Romano-Greek influence. In fact neither Greeks or Romans, nor Cassidorus, nor Jordanes, had access to these old legends. They were local in origin and stayed localized (much like Beowulf).

In the Hervar Saga (fm the Old Edda), we find the sword Tyrfing-- the same sword worshiped by the Tryfingi Goths who named themselves after it. This is a direct cultural link between the Geats and the Goths. And it is totally outside the Romano-Greek sphere. It's not theory. It's folk record. And it cannot be ignored or disputed, or even refutiated. It doesn't matter whether Hervar or her father Argantar were real people or not. We cannot dismiss Tryfing (one of which was probably Excalibur).

The Hervar Saga was finally written down in pagan Iceland. That's a long way from Rome. Admittedly I know less about the Gotsaga, in which the losers are forced to migrate south into Russia and the Black Sea litoral. This is a record of over-population, the soil of Gotland unable to sustain everyone. Frankly, I don't think Wolfram even used these sagas an an argument for the Goths coming from Scandia. And likewise, our more modern "revisionist" scholars, Heather, Halsell, or whomever, have avoided these "records," probably because the sagas refutiate their theories. Perhaps I'm wrong in this, and perhaps the saga-Gothic connection has been discussed and I (in my ignorance) am not aware of it. :wink:

In this light-- the Tyrfing/Tryfingi link in the sagas-- we really don't have to argue over the authenticity of anything compiled in the Origo Gothia. This includes fighting the Egyptians and all the other rot that was added for glory. The Origo Gothia isn't even needed. And all of our good men (Heather, Halsell, etc.) can toss it into the "circular file."

[Rumo]

BUT the Thracians and Dacians were NOT TRYING TO FIT INTO GREEK SOCIETY. They were only INFLUENCED by the Greeks. There is a huge difference. As opposed to this, the "joiners" (and there were many!) into Gothic society wanted to, HAD to, fit into the gens. The gens was the all. If you couldn't navigate within the politics and economics of the gens, you lost. You never went anywhere in that society. For this reason, just as my grandparents did, the newcomers needed to learn the language of the dominent (call it "royal") clique. I think we are talking about two different causes and effect, Influence and Absolute Need.

Greek cultural influence in Thracian space is much more consistent than "Germanic" (for ancient history I consider the term valid just in linguistics) cultural influence in Eastern Europe, so I can only wonder on what grounds do you assess how hard those people tried to fit in. What is the evidence these ?ernjachov inhabitants tried to learn a Germanic idiom, what is the evidence they attempted to fit in a sterotypical "Germanic gens"? As I already pointed out ?ernjachov is a heterogenous culture. Those biritual cemetaries rather suggest people with quite different religious views and consequently different perspectives of life.

And why compare the non-Germanic Goths with some of your ancestors and not with all those (proto-)Albanians resisting Latin, with all those Vlachs resisting Magyar or Greek? If that axiom of three generations would be true in Roman Empire there would have been only two languages - Latin and Greek, in Byzantine Empire only Greek, in Kingdom of Hungary only Hungarian, in Ottoman Empire only Turkish, etc. Languages like Romanian and Albanian should have not existed, because for more than three generations their speakers were part of other empires, of other dominant cultures.

Actually my tongue was in cheek when I mentioned why Ulfilas' bible was written in Gothic. He was trying to reach All the Goths, not just the hierarchy. Primarily he was an evangelist; and the many presbyters who preached north of the Danube attest to this philosophy. He wanted not to preach to the choir, but to all of "his" people, the very and only reason he translated the bible from Greek.

Ulfilas' "all Goths" were small groups near the Danube. What did Ulfilas know of those on Dniester and Dnieper, where we have clusters of settlements? Even the most erudite Roman authors were hopelessly confused about north-Danubian geography and ethnography, should we think Ulfilas or any Christian preacher knew better?

This was not an isolated phenomenon but a full scale evangelism, just as Bishop Amantius later conducted with the Alans in Pannonia. In Gothia itself, we find two persecutions aimed at stamping out Christianity, first by Aoric and later by his son Athanaric. This latter purge appears to have been the reason that Fritigern recieved help from Valens and the riparian troops stationed at the Danube in the very early 470s. This purge was a hot one, and it attests to a growing Christian populace within Gothia. We had torchings, one church (tents really) burned with its presbyter, another torched with the entire laity perishing. We find drownings and stonings. So the bible of Ulfilas was written for a "mass" audience (pardon the pun :lol: ), even though most Goths were illiterate. It was the tool of evangelistic presbyters.

These late 4th century events happened near the Danube which is further evidence the spread of Christianity in Gothia was restricted to some regions (near the Roman frontier). And I'm not sure if we can prove these persecuted Christians were those converted by Ulfilas and his disciples.

But the fact is many Goths could read, perhaps both Latin and Greek. Both Athanaric and Fritigern navigated through negotiations with the Romans on several occasions. Even Aoric (who lived for some years in Constantinople) may have been literate. Both Safrax and Alatheus were at least versed in Latin (perhaps even Persian), and Alaric was fluent in it. We tend to think of them as "barbarians" but there was a sizable Gothic population living in Constantinople prior to the 5th century, and Constantine's royal guard (the Scholae) was made up of Tyrfingi.

Speaking Latin is not reading or writing it. Some Goths from the Empire learnt to read and write, but they were few. When Dacia fell from Romans to Goths and other tribes from Barbaricum that meant the end of its written culture and the end of its urban life. This is one of the many reasons why Goths are commonly regarded as "barbarians".

An entirely seperate group of links arrived from Scandia itself! How can this be explained, if the Goths had no old cultural ties to the north? (an idea that is only a theory) I have mentioned the Old Edda and the Gotsaga, both of which were formed within a barbarian society outside Romano-Greek influence. In fact neither Greeks or Romans, nor Cassidorus, nor Jordanes, had access to these old legends. They were local in origin and stayed localized (much like Beowulf).

These legends were written down in the Middle Ages. They certainly rely on some local traditions, too, but they were not formed outside Graeco-Roman influence, as by this time many works in Latin, including Getica, were available.

In the Hervar Saga (fm the Old Edda), we find the sword Tyrfing-- the same sword worshiped by the Tryfingi Goths who named themselves after it. This is a direct cultural link between the Geats and the Goths. And it is totally outside the Romano-Greek sphere. It's not theory. It's folk record. And it cannot be ignored or disputed, or even refutiated. It doesn't matter whether Hervar or her father Argantar were real people or not. We cannot dismiss Tryfing (one of which was probably Excalibur).

Can you bring some analogies of populations named after mythical swords because I can't find any.

[Alanus]

And why compare the non-Germanic Goths with some of your ancestors and not with all those (proto-)Albanians resisting Latin, with all those Vlachs resisting Magyar or Greek? If that axiom of three generations would be true in Roman Empire there would have been only two languages - Latin and Greek, in Byzantine Empire only Greek, in Kingdom of Hungary only Hungarian, in Ottoman Empire only Turkish, etc. Languages like Romanian and Albanian should have not existed, because for more than three generations their speakers were part of other empires, of other dominant cultures.

All of the above social groups were large, and they were not placed in the position of "survive or fall to the wayside." In my grandparents situation, they settled into a totally English-speaking population. There was no "little Italy." Everything was done in English (at the workplace, or just purchasing groceries), so it was either "fit in" or "stand aside." The same situation held for those "outsiders" who fell in with the Goths, but even more so. Because the Gothic gens was primarily a military one, and it extended into a migratory one until the 5th century. You either learned the prevailing language or you went nowhere in that military society. A case of not NEED TO, but HAVE TO.

Ulfilas' "all Goths" were small groups near the Danube. What did Ulfilas know of those on Dniester and Dnieper, where we have clusters of settlements? Even the most erudite Roman authors were hopelessly confused about north-Danubian geography and ethnography, should we think Ulfilas or any Christian preacher knew better?

I would say he knew a lot about them, just in the fact they lived along a well-trodden trade route. Trade and its exchange of commodoties gave all people (no matter where they lived) "news" of happenings and populations hundreds of miles away. It was slower than it is today, but the same principle. Eusebious,Ulfilas, and the Catholics, extended Christianity right into the Crimea, well beyond the Dnieper. Don't be so hard on the ancient authors. They knew populations and river names thousands of kilometers away from where they lived. Enough that Stabo correctly identified and geographically-placed the Sacae who lived beyond Sogdiana.

These late 4th century events happened near the Danube which is further evidence the spread of Christianity in Gothia was restricted to some regions (near the Roman frontier). And I'm not sure if we can prove these persecuted Christians were those converted by Ulfilas and his disciples.

Well, we only have Sozemus and Socrates Scholasticus as our sources, so they could have been "lying sacks of ----," but then again maybe they were honest in claiming that the Christianization of the Goths (ie Tyrfingi) was due to Ulfilas and Fritigern.

When Dacia fell from Romans to Goths and other tribes from Barbaricum that meant the end of its written culture and the end of its urban life. This is one of the many reasons why Goths are commonly regarded as "barbarians".

Oh? I never realized that the Thracians and Dacians were 100 % literate, and I don't suppose the Romans ever called them "barbarians" either, eh? hock:

These legends were written down in the Middle Ages. They certainly rely on some local traditions, too, but they were not formed outside Graeco-Roman influence, as by this time many works in Latin, including Getica, were available.

Oh, I'm sure that all the families in Iceland sat around the fire reading Jordanes and Tacitus. Especially since it was dark outside for 6 months. Give me and the readers of this thread a break, Rumo. If the Roman classics were so popular in Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, why weren't those stories incorporated into their sagas. Certainly, they weren't written down until the middle ages, but they described tales that occurred in the old homeland, even though they didn't reach Iceland until after 870. The sagas-- including the Hervar Saga-- were sung since man first opened his mouth to stick his foot in it! :lol:

Can you bring some analogies of populations named after mythical swords because I can't find any.

I suppose we could use the population I alluded to earlier. However the sword was actually real, as in historical, not mythical. Tyrfing was planted in a mound of ground, or sometimes a pile of stones, by the populace who worshiped it-- the Gothic Tyrfingi. But additionally, it was also worshiped by the Alans and all Sarmatian tribes going all the way back to the Scythians. See Ammianus and Herodutus on this matter.

Like I said earlier. The Tyrfing-Tryfingi-Hervar-Saga link is irrefutable in the standard world of common sense and logic. Beyond that world, it can be argued by "reachers"... such as all those Icelanders reading thousands of scribal copies of Jordanes before going to bed.

[diegis]

All of the above social groups were large, and they were not placed in the position of "survive or fall to the wayside." In my grandparents situation, they settled into a totally English-speaking population. There was no "little Italy." Everything was done in English (at the workplace, or just purchasing groceries), so it was either "fit in" or "stand aside." The same situation held for those "outsiders" who fell in with the Goths, but even more so. Because the Gothic gens was primarily a military one, and it extended into a migratory one until the 5th century. You either learned the prevailing language or you went nowhere in that military society. A case of not NEED TO, but HAVE TO.



I would say he knew a lot about them, just in the fact they lived along a well-trodden trade route. Trade and its exchange of commodoties gave all people (no matter where they lived) "news" of happenings and populations hundreds of miles away. It was slower than it is today, but the same principle. Eusebious,Ulfilas, and the Catholics, extended Christianity right into the Crimea, well beyond the Dnieper. Don't be so hard on the ancient authors. They knew populations and river names thousands of kilometers away from where they lived. Enough that Stabo correctly identified and geographically-placed the Sacae who lived beyond Sogdiana.



Oh? I never realized that the Thracians and Dacians were 100 % literate, and I don't suppose the Romans ever called them "barbarians" either, eh? hock:

These legends were written down in the Middle Ages. They certainly rely on some local traditions, too, but they were not formed outside Graeco-Roman influence, as by this time many works in Latin, including Getica, were available.

Oh, I'm sure that all the families in Iceland sat around the fire reading Jordanes and Tacitus. Especially since it was dark outside for 6 months. Give me and the readers of this thread a break, Rumo. If the Roman classics were so popular in Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, why weren't those stories incorporated into their sagas. Certainly, they weren't written down until the middle ages, but they described tales that occurred in the old homeland, even though they didn't reach Iceland until after 870. The sagas-- including the Hervar Saga-- were sung since man first opened his mouth to stick his foot in it! :lol:
)

Salut Alanus

I might disagree with gothic linguistic influence in north of Danube, since clearly the superior civilization was dacians, both cultural and material, even after the kingdom of Decebalus was distroyed and a part of Dacia was transformed in roman province. Even prior roman ocupation dacians had towns, build fortreses with original walls (called "murus dacicus" by romans) special designed to resist to siege weapons, had water pipes and paved roards, etc., and acording with both archeology and Jordanes (who said they had written laws too, called "belagines") they had a very advanced astronomy for that times. Neither germanic or sarmatian parts of later formed goths wasnt near this. Ofcourse, at the moment of formation of goths, dacians didnt had all this anymore, but they still keep their traditions and religion, and part of this can be see even today, when some of their believes or traditions was preserved in popular culture (in fact form the base of folklore) and even integrated in christian religion here. As well, if you look at Santana/Cernyakov culture, you will see that on a part exist biritualic cemeteries, with the incineration part most probably belonging to dacians, and as well it cant be traced a link betwen Scandinavia culture and Cernyakov/Santana one, meaning that even if agree that goths (meaning the germanic part of them) migrated from there (which is not impossible after all), probably in small groups during a longer period, they adopted mostly the superior material culture of locals (Dacians, and even Sarmatians). So, its hard to believe that they was able to impose their language as the main one in this conglomerat of peoples. Dont forget the roman influence, who was coming thru links betwen dacians from roman province and the free dacians, and "affected" all the peoples from the borders.
As well, goths themselves had dacians and their history in high regards, Jordanes mention the kings of goths from their second period, this being infact dacians kings of even gods (as Zalmoxes), and Issidor from Sevilla and his visigoths did the same, independent of Jordanes, and their nobles believed, or affirm, that they had as ancestors Dicineus, Buruista, even the same Zalmoxes and so on, all former dacian kings.
And, as an interesting comparition, there is a kind of reversed "Getica", the "Gesta Normanorum", where this time a small group of dacian warriors migrate from Dacia to the north under leadership of Rollo (remaind me the names of some dacian kings as Roles and Oroles), where they put the bases of normans. Because of this fact (or legend) Denmark was called for a period Dacia, and Carol Lundius, from Uppsalla university write somewhere in XVII century if i remember corect, a book about Zalmoxes, the first legislator of Getae, making the same conection of getae/dacians and Sweden/Gotland areas. Should we believe this tradition as well then?
Dont get me wrong, i fully agree that goths had a germanic part, which pretty much keep many of its traditions, but they was very mixed with other peoples, who as well keep their traditions, and as well is hard to see what is real and what is not in Jordanes writing, who, as Justin and Rumo said (and me previous) is very possible to inspire from roman legend of Eneas, to write something similar (goths coming from a far and exotic place) to impress the roman audience. So, at least for me, is hard to say anything as 100 % sure.

[Alanus]

Hailog, Diegis

Good to hear from you. Let's go over a few points of interest:

I might disagree with gothic linguistic influence in north of Danube, since clearly the superior civilization was dacians, both cultural and material, even after the kingdom of Decebalus was distroyed and a part of Dacia was transformed in roman province...

I believe the "Gothic language influence" north of the Danube was probably only within the Guitilda, the gens itself, and not in the general population outside the gens. I do agree that the Dacian culture was more civilized than what see in the Goths. But the Dacian infrastructure was mostly destroyed first by Trajan and then almost immediatly finished-off by the raiding Sauromatae, who actually arrived before the Goths. So, in this case can we blame the Goths? Probably not.

And, as an interesting comparition, there is a kind of reversed "Getica", the "Gesta Normanorum", where this time a small group of dacian warriors migrate from Dacia to the north under leadership of Rollo (remaind me the names of some dacian kings as Roles and Oroles), where they put the bases of normans. Because of this fact (or legend) Denmark was called for a period Dacia, and Carol Lundius, from Uppsalla university write somewhere in XVII century if i remember corect, a book about Zalmoxes, the first legislator of Getae, making the same conection of getae/dacians and Sweden/Gotland areas. Should we believe this tradition as well then?

Caral Lundius sounds like quite the character. Imaginative. However he was writing a 17th-century quasi-legendary book about a guy who dropped out of candy wrapper. I don't think its analogous to the Getica.

Dont get me wrong, i fully agree that goths had a germanic part, which pretty much keep many of its traditions, but they was very mixed with other peoples, who as well keep their traditions, and as well is hard to see what is real and what is not in Jordanes writing, who, as Justin and Rumo said (and me previous) is very possible to inspire from roman legend of Eneas, to write something similar (goths coming from a far and exotic place) to impress the roman audience. So, at least for me, is hard to say anything as 100 % sure.

I certainly agree with most of that. The Germanic element appears to have kept their traditions (and gods) intact; and other cultures that homogonized with the Goths appear to have done likewise. That's why we find the varying burial rites side by side. The crucial factor only arrived with Christianity, which threatened to pacify the Gothic hero-volk, change him into a nice "flower child" as it were. This is the way Aoric perceived it and the reason he began torching people.

I disagree with Justin and Rumo (and I guess you too) claiming it was "possible" that the Roman legend of Aeneas was the inspiration for the Scandia element. Yes, it's "possible" but highly "improbable." I would call it a "reacher." With a scenario like that, you chaps can sit down to lunch with Wilson, Blackett, Littleton, Malcor, and Davis-Kimball. The Scandia connection is found in totally independent sources, yet all arrive from Scandian culture. Like I said, the ringer is the sword Tyrfing in the Hervar Saga. To claim that Vergil was read by the Icelanders in the period when the Hervar Saga was a night's entertainment is a "incredibly long reacher." It's a lot like claiming Geats really enjoyed a quiet game of tidilly-winks over a good brawl and a swilling horn of mead. Like King Hedric reading Keats-- "Oh, gwacious yes. Absowutely thwilling!" :roll: