--- malmqvist52 <malmqvist52@...
> Hi George,--- In cybalist@..., george knysh
> <gknysh@...> wrote:
> > *****GK: The Getae
> (not the Goths who at that time
> > were still in "Scandzia")
> What's Your source for this information?
> Is it archaeological evidence? If so, I think I just
> read the
> opposite somwhere. I. e. that the Goths NEVER were
> in Scandinavia!
> I will of course look this up.
> Best wishes
Are you perhaps referring to the comment made by Dirk
on the Gothic list with references to two recent
(?)German studies? Let me say from the outset that I
have absolutely no axe to grind on this issue. My
current view derives from a combination of (gasp)
Jordanes and the latest discussions of Polish
archaeologists available to me. There are few if any
problems in tracing the trek of the Goths from ca. 50
AD: "follow the Welbark culture". The problem concerns
the genesis of this culture. There was a big
discussion about it in 1979 at Slupsk in Poland (the
materials of the symposium were published in 1981).
Subsequently (as late as 1990)nothing emerged to
change the perspective. The dominant view of
archaeologists then was that the Welbark culture was
formed by the fusion of an earlier "Pomorian" culture
(perhaps already partly Germanic) with that of an
"incoming Scandinavian population". Perhaps we should
look up the most recent German literature, but Tore
thinks that it doesn't affect the case made by Polish
archaeology.=== In any event, my basic comment about
"Scandzia" (deliberately left in quotation marks) was
that in 50 BC there were no Goths in the areas
controlled by Burebista and his Diceneus, either, we
can say, because they did not yet exist as the result
of the "fusion" mentioned above, or because they had
not yet migrated across the Baltic (from Gotland or
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.