I wrote:
"What's even more interesting perhaps is that the name Getae (as
referring to anyone else but the Goths) also seems to mysteriously
disappear at the same time the name Goth appears. I've asked on
other lists and in private posts for anyone to contradict me on this.
No one has so far. (Not to say someone couldn't, but no one has.)"
"Rex H. McTyeire" <rexbo@...> REPLIED
> I disagree. Some much more qualified than I challenged in detail on
> EuroArch a year ago...and I argued against as well. In any case:
> consider the position challenged anew. :-)
Don't do that Rex. Or I'll be forced to metaphorically slap you in
the cheek with a metaphorical gauntlet and call you (metaphorically)
a knave and a disassembler. NO ONE supplied such a reference to
living "Getae" at the same time there were living "Goths" around.
And neither have you. Not saying that you couldn't. But you sure as
hell haven't.
(And, BTW, if you looked at that list lately, you'll find that in
response to a fellow named samrubin, who made the reasonable argument
that the "Venethi" of Tacitus COULD have been spoken some form of
early Slavic, the moderator himself answered by thoroughly dismissing
your "ancient texts" as pretty much useless for archaeology. So
I'd suggest -- but I think you already know this -- that you
shouldn't rely too much on that list for support of your own
theories.)
Rex complains, on the other hand, "that damage done to the concept of
the region (eastern Danube) by library driven views limited to
interpretations (with out modern arch) from Roman and Church Slavic
writings, in that century continue to befuddle this list"
I must point out that modern archaeology PROVES NOTHING about any
people who might have been known as the "Getae" in ancient times.
There's some evidence, but only the prejudging can tell us what it
means. I'd like to know how many times archaeologists actually have
found an inscription with the word "Getae" on it. Among western Iron
Age archeaologists like John Collis such connections between ethnic
designation and material remains with no writing on it are considered
pretty much guaranteed to be wrong. (E.g., the long string of
textually "guaranteed" Etruscan sites in Italy that came up as
LaTene. Not Celtic, LaTene. The difference is important.)
I'm sorry, but the archaeology is very unclear. And one good reason
for that. Modern Japanese cars and American music CDs don't tell us
a thing about the language or the culture of who is driving or
listening. And back then we shouldn't expect anything different.
And the same goes with names. My point has been nothing more than
that the OBJECTIVE evidence doesn't prove the Goth/Getae name didn't
happen because let's say the Getae thought it was neat to be called
Goths and vice-versa. Or that there weren't Getae who were Goths.
There is some possibility that this name mixing was some kind of an
accurate reflection of what happened. And I'm afraid that Rex (and
George) don't know otherwise.
There is a key reason for this position and its not just the ancient
texts. It's right there in our histories. Those Native-Americans
for example who don't like the name "Indians" wonder why that
particular obvious and isolated mistake hasn't been corrected in 500
years. With paltry and confused evidence like we have from ancient
text, wouldn't we assume that modern English-speaking Americans once
"occupied" all of North and South America? Or that the modern
British speak the Celtic of the Britons or that the Franks spoke
French? And I think I've mentioned the incredible journey the name
Volcae apparently took to become the name Vlachs.
And can I ask how one can possibly consider the later "Scythian" and
"Getae" as mere conventions without AT LEAST entertaining the
possibility that the early "Scythian" and "Getae" names were also
mere conventions, applied without a great deal of care to one group
or another.
I'm sorry but the clear evidence is that the Getae/Goth connection
occurred VERY EARLY in the history of the Goth name. That's the
evidence on its face. My theory is that it all reflected more than
just simple confusion. That it was motivated at least by the need to
leave the old "Bastarnae" name behind. Rex's and George's theories
are also based on lots of inferences. None of this stuff is anywhere
as certain as Rex has made it out to be.
(A side note: As far as archeaology proving that the "Goths" who
appear on the Danube in the third century AD were the same as
"Wielbark" culture: the fact is that most or all of Wielbark is not
Scandinavian in origin. That misimpression is the lingering legacy
of Kossina. In fact, a good part of Wielbark identified by Kossina
as northern (e.g., the serpent headed bracelets and such) seem to
have originated long before in the area of the Danube. Heather's
argument is probably the strongest in favor of a 2d century AD
migration. But it is very circumstantial and pivots on the
assumption
that key elements of Wielbark did not come from the south. And that
is JUST an assumption. It certainly does not jive with the spread of
iron technology or burial practices to the region.)
Steve Long
.............