09-07-2009, 01:48 PM
Salve Alanus
Well, i will try to syntezise my views. First, if you read modern scholars as i mentioned before (Kulikowski, Hallsal, etc.), and look at archeology, you will see that this disprouve any strong connections with the supposed migration of the Goths from Scandinavia/Scandza, and that was just the interpretation made by german and other western historians, from the romantic times up to modern ones. And is based just on Jordanes "Getica", who is interpretated as correct just on some parts, from political and nationalist reasons, as well as some connections betwen classic Goths and some later legends from Scandinavia area. Because if you believe them, why you think is wrong to believe that Normans had Dacian kings, as in legend of Dudo. For ex., one of those scholars even debate that so called "germani" tribes have any feelings that they are linguistically connected, and "germani"(roman name give to tribes from Rhine and upper Danube) considered themselves as part of the same peoples. As it is the case with Celts too, who is debatable if was different peoples under the same "umbrella" or was really the same peoples.
About Goths, we know for sure that they become visible, as classic Goths, in the area of Cerneakhov/Santana de Mures culture. That culture it was a mix of local cultures, with Dacian one having a major role. It was like a cockteil, formed from diferent peoples, ones already there (Dacians, sarmatians), and ones arrived later (germanic peoples). This culture was as well under a heavy roman influence, from Daco-Romans peoples from dacian teritory transformed in roman province of Dacia. Just after settle of that mixed culture, we can talk about Goths, more like a product of romans frontiers, a product made by several diferent peoples, but still having a dominant local culture (poterry, architecture, burial habits who are predominant dacian) but with heavy roman influences. Yes, germanic part (the ones you mentioned if you wish) became at some moment the "political" dominant part (but not at first, when so called "free Dacians" was the leaders of an alliance who attacked the Roman empire). But they was so mixed at a point that many ancient chronicars stoped to make a difference betwen Dacians/Getians (Carpi, Costobocii, Free Dacians) and Goths (both contemporary to them), and use for later Goths the name Get/Getae. Later, a part of this Goths migrated from the area, but the culture remain, as well as other local "pure" dacian cultures, and "daco-roman" ones, meaning that an alliance of those mixed tribes, lead probably by germanic leaders, moved further inside roman borders. They still had a dacian heritage anyway, if you look at the paintings of St. Apollinare church of Teodoric the Great, where are painted Dacian "tarabostes" as the 3 'kings" from the east who bring gifts to Jesus.
Beside the some old writings who said that Dacians/Getians had a role in Scandinavian area history we have an interesting view from genetics, who said that Romania and Balkans area (former Dacia and Thracia) have the biggest portion of "I" haplogroup, and from there this haplogroup migrate to north in Scandinavia area, where have as well an important maximum, and i read too some things about a possible previous migration of a thraco-dacian population there, since thracians was acording with Herodotus, the most numerous peoples on Earth, after indians, and was not a surprise if they move there too, as some less numerous peoples, Celts, migrated from Ireland to Panonia (if we can speak about the same peoples, and not diferent peoples under the one generic name).
And about writings now, i think you are wrong, peoples like germans, poles, hungarians or english for ex. use the latin as the court and church language, but none of this peoples are latins.
Well, i will try to syntezise my views. First, if you read modern scholars as i mentioned before (Kulikowski, Hallsal, etc.), and look at archeology, you will see that this disprouve any strong connections with the supposed migration of the Goths from Scandinavia/Scandza, and that was just the interpretation made by german and other western historians, from the romantic times up to modern ones. And is based just on Jordanes "Getica", who is interpretated as correct just on some parts, from political and nationalist reasons, as well as some connections betwen classic Goths and some later legends from Scandinavia area. Because if you believe them, why you think is wrong to believe that Normans had Dacian kings, as in legend of Dudo. For ex., one of those scholars even debate that so called "germani" tribes have any feelings that they are linguistically connected, and "germani"(roman name give to tribes from Rhine and upper Danube) considered themselves as part of the same peoples. As it is the case with Celts too, who is debatable if was different peoples under the same "umbrella" or was really the same peoples.
About Goths, we know for sure that they become visible, as classic Goths, in the area of Cerneakhov/Santana de Mures culture. That culture it was a mix of local cultures, with Dacian one having a major role. It was like a cockteil, formed from diferent peoples, ones already there (Dacians, sarmatians), and ones arrived later (germanic peoples). This culture was as well under a heavy roman influence, from Daco-Romans peoples from dacian teritory transformed in roman province of Dacia. Just after settle of that mixed culture, we can talk about Goths, more like a product of romans frontiers, a product made by several diferent peoples, but still having a dominant local culture (poterry, architecture, burial habits who are predominant dacian) but with heavy roman influences. Yes, germanic part (the ones you mentioned if you wish) became at some moment the "political" dominant part (but not at first, when so called "free Dacians" was the leaders of an alliance who attacked the Roman empire). But they was so mixed at a point that many ancient chronicars stoped to make a difference betwen Dacians/Getians (Carpi, Costobocii, Free Dacians) and Goths (both contemporary to them), and use for later Goths the name Get/Getae. Later, a part of this Goths migrated from the area, but the culture remain, as well as other local "pure" dacian cultures, and "daco-roman" ones, meaning that an alliance of those mixed tribes, lead probably by germanic leaders, moved further inside roman borders. They still had a dacian heritage anyway, if you look at the paintings of St. Apollinare church of Teodoric the Great, where are painted Dacian "tarabostes" as the 3 'kings" from the east who bring gifts to Jesus.
Beside the some old writings who said that Dacians/Getians had a role in Scandinavian area history we have an interesting view from genetics, who said that Romania and Balkans area (former Dacia and Thracia) have the biggest portion of "I" haplogroup, and from there this haplogroup migrate to north in Scandinavia area, where have as well an important maximum, and i read too some things about a possible previous migration of a thraco-dacian population there, since thracians was acording with Herodotus, the most numerous peoples on Earth, after indians, and was not a surprise if they move there too, as some less numerous peoples, Celts, migrated from Ireland to Panonia (if we can speak about the same peoples, and not diferent peoples under the one generic name).
And about writings now, i think you are wrong, peoples like germans, poles, hungarians or english for ex. use the latin as the court and church language, but none of this peoples are latins.
Razvan A.
