In spite of other differences in perception, I agree with George
K here on most points ..and take issue with Steve on the main point:
Goth = Getae . Suggesting that a migratory people called Goth enter
rather late an area named post 100 AD with a Getarum reference by Romans
who had already eclipsed most Getic areas. Lets shake out major
objections and glaring errors of perception. Offered IMO at present:
O-: In fact, it may have been a fairly common thing
O-: to refer to the Goths as Getae for some three hundred years before
O-: Jordanes.
Probably true: ..a compilation of errors contributing to his.
O-: Neither Jordanes nor Orosius seem to be the first to connect the
O-: Goths and the Getae.
But all of the references follow a series of Roman reorganizations of
the eastern Danube, and the rise and Collapse of the Dacia 1 state, and
some as well the collapse of the Roman province of the same name (Dacia
2) that followed. Getic States and groups had been reduced repeatedly
and absorbed into other entities. Well before the 4th AD: Getae had
been reduced to a resilient generalization of regions North and East of
consolidated Latinization..IE beginning in Herodotus' Scythia, and well
north and east of the Danube without regard to differences in peoples
there.
O-: > In the early fourth century, Aelius
O-: > Spartianus in his Life of Caracalla wrote regarding his subject's
O-: > triumphal names: "For when he assumed the surnames Germanicus,
O-: > Parthicus, Arabicus, and Alamannicus..., Helvius Pertinax, son of
O-: > Pertinax, said to him in jest, or so it is said, "Add to the
others,
O-: > please, that of Geticus Maximus also"; for he had slain his
brother
O-: > Geta, and Getae is a name for the Goths, whom he conquered, while
O-:> on his way to the East,..."
Getae was only a resilient regional name for the eastern area into which
the Goths emerged: AD. Getae clearly and distinctly cover a wider area
BC.
O-: > So it seems there was talk of "Getae" = "Gothi" only about 50
years
O-: > after Dexippus' first fragmentary reference to Goths in Greek
texts.
O-: > Claudian (born @ 370 AD) also use Getae and Goth interchangeably
in
O-: > his lives of the emperors. And there is also the inscription on
O-: the
The Getae were far from strangers to Greeks and written Greek
history..and fragmentary reference that does not clearly equate and
co-locate is evidence in itself of distinction. An eclipse of regions
associated with the Getae name after 200 AD only borders on the NE of
the regions with the same general name references 600 years earlier..as
the Dacian state began to Emerge and push names around.
O-: > triumphal arch regarding Alaric quoted by Gibbon:"...but in less
O-: than
O-: > seven years, the Gothic conquerors of Rome might read, if they
were
O-: > able to read, the superb inscription of that monument, which
O-: attested
O-: > the total defeat and destruction of their nation.... 'Getarum
O-: > nationem in omne aevum domitam,...' So it would appear that the
O-: > inscribers of that arch also thought the Goths were Getae.
Again the regional reference is limited to north and east of the Danube
and Mouth, too late to be defining of Getae who are defined in detail,
much earlier. Getic and the pre-Roman region:(IMO = Thrace). I
speculate (George opposes) there were Getae groups on and well east of
the Dniester..prior to the Scythian incursion. I still reject any
equation of Goth to Getae as two names for the same peoples nearly a
millennia later because they held land in a region called "Getarum
Solitudo" by Romans post-Scythia.
O-: > It seems probable from all this that the Goths as Getae was not a
O-: > mere convenient connection made centuries later. In fact, I don't
O-: > think anyone we know of did not connect Goths and Getae before
O-: maybe 1400AD.
Yes : well 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 :-)
O-: > What's even more interesting perhaps is that the name Getae (as
O-: > referring to anyone else but the Goths) also seems to mysteriously
O-: > disappear at the same time the name Goth appears.
No mystery: they were absorbed into Dacia1 or Dacia2,.(borders
different) Latinized on the periphery in loose buffer states..or
dispersed, or lumped with all others North and east of the Danube.
Getae as a people was essentially already an historical reference by 271
AD, but the post-Roman regional reference had moved it NE in name only.
Dacian had evolved from a tribal through a national reference..to then
become a pre-Romanian epithet for all latinized in the region that
weren't Moesi: including intrusives, colonists, Scyths, Sarmats,
Thracians of all stripes (including Daci and Getae) and Bastarnae.
O-: I've asked on
O-: other lists and in private posts for anyone to contradict me on
O-: this. No one has so far.
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. :-)
O-: > The same is true for the sometimes repeated assertion that there
is
O-: > some kind of evidence that the Goths destroyed the Getae. I've
O-: > never seen that evidence either.
There were no Getic states or organized Getae when the Goth appeared.
The descendents of some in a polyglot of post Roman provinces claimed
Getic and Dacian ties toward evolution of Romania..but SW of the Goth
appearance. They did occupy many areas of these provinces..but were
perceived as outsiders, invaders.. and pushed out by Byzantine actions
after failed treaties. (I also oppose Piotr's summary that the region
was "zeroed out" language and population wise ..then backfilled with
other Danubian Latin speakers later..this later group evolving a
Romaneste language as a replacement people. I take the continuity route
of explanation of mixed Latinized people in place surviving a series of
regional overlords. "Latinized Geto-Daci " forward through the invaders
in my view.
O-: > One problem really is that the name "Getae" floats around a lot in
O-: > the ancient texts. They are a different kind of Thracians among
O-: > Thracians in Herodotus. And they are a group among groups along
the
O-: > Danube in Arrian and Strabo. When Dacians are mentioned in
Strabo,
O-: > they are kind of like Getae from west of the Getae.
Very general but fair, and key to ongoing differences in defining
Thrace. I don't see them as "a different kind of Thracian" just a subset
large tribal/cultural group of the larger regional name, in turn
encompassing, parenting or absorbing many subtribal Thracian group
names.
O-: > Both Herodotus and Strabo also mention the "desert of the Getae"
or
O-: > no-man's land northeast of the Danube. And that might suggest
that
O-: > "Getes" was a place as well as it was a people at some earlier
O-: point in time.
One reason why I tentatively extend Getae (in tribal groups) eastward
prior to 400 BC.
O-: And for ancient writers that could be the reason for
O-: giving the name.
Precisely. Does not equate Getae to Goth, however. Simplest form:
Getae were early, Goths were late. (IMO) Some Goths enter history in
areas that had (1) been Getic, and then (2) Scythia, and (3) relabeled
Getarum after c. 107AD. Then they moved west later as a transitory
dominance to be pushed further west.
O-:The Goths WERE Scythians in the sense that they lived in
O-: > Scythia at one point. That Roman who wrote of living among the
O-: Huns as a hostage used the names Huns and Scythians interchangeably.
There was no Scythia at the time they lived there...the argument is out
of time sequence. Scythia, like many ancient regional terms..was often
used pre-Roman for <all land> < to the extent of human occupation>
North and East of the Dniester. Goths moved Into the western most
portion of the region called Scythia (and corresponding to Herodotus's
Scythia) The same area narrowed by Romans to a Getic related name very
late. Then later they moved westward as a temporary dominating external
force into what had been both Dacia's and most of Transylvania. The
Latinized peoples post-Dacia 2 had a fairer claim to Getae than peoples
then NE the Dniester, regardless of what the Romans called it, and
regardless of the presence of some peoples (including Getae) pushed
NE-ward by the Roman consolidation of the eastern Danube.
O-: > Obviously, these ancient people weren't quite as sticky about
using
O-: > such names as we would have hoped them to be.
I think rather it just takes some work to understand the applications
(and changes in reference, and size relationships) over time.
O-: The Goth/Getae connections given above proves nothing. But it does
O-: leave open possibilities. And these kind of possibilities of
O-: course can't be eliminated with any kind of real certainty.
Sure they can :-)
O-: > My own idea in this direction is that maybe the name Getae became
O-: > connected with Germanic language speakers north of the Danube
O-: > sometime before the "coming of the Goths."
Same puzzle: There were Getae in Thracia (IMO, but opposed by George)
Getae defining Thracia as the largest historically defined cultural
tribal group 2000 BC to 400 BC when political entities began to emerge:
Dacia 1.
O-: > times. But just enough to make it comfortable ber writers well
O-: > before Jordanes to use the name interchangeably. I think the key
O-: to that connection had something to do with a group called the
O-: Bastarnae.
The language of the Bastarnae is disputed (and some say German)..they
were small (relative to Getae) and intrusive in my view ..into Getae
dominated area. Long before a Goth appeared. Related linguistically
and in point of migratory origin? I dunno..but not related in time.
Bastarnae early..Goth later as I see it. I am a Georgian and a Scot,
and an American..none of those terms are really used
interchangeably..they just seem to be if you don't follow all the
circumstances. I am in Romania late..I am not Getae. Neither were Goth
forces moving into the "Getarum" region.
[snip..no major objections]
O-: In connection with the attack on Olbia, their name is used
O-: together with the Getae. They are allies of the Dacians and
O-: effective protectors of the Bosporian kingdom in battles against
O-: Rome.
Yes. At the time of your reference, Rome has consolidated Dacia 2,
refugees from Dacia 1 continue to resist with other Thracians and
non-Thracian northerners not yet under Roman control or trade
influence..now generically called Getae..as distinct from Latinized
former Geto-Daci areas south and west..then enter Goth on the NE of this
picture.
O-: > And the Scandinavian origin thing starts to our knowledge with
O-: > Jordanes. But the only living memory of the Goths mentioned by
O-: > Jordanes were songs sung of being called "Pilleati"
O-: and "Capillati" -a clear connection to the Dacians.
Why?
O-: So, perhaps Goths as Bastarnae
O-: and Getae as Dacians at some point shared some common cultural,
O-: > religious or other connection that neighbors and allies often do.
O-: > That would allow Theodoric via Cassiodorus to adopt the Getae as
O-: the "pure" ancesters so important to the new "birthright" kings.
In my view..a Goth dominated army moving west ward after 200AD from a
stint NE the Danube would have to include Dacians, Getae, Bastarnae,
Scyths, Sarmats and others. This does not reflect on the cultural or
linguistic definitions of Dacian, Getae, Thrace, or Bastarnae prior to
the Goth appearance.
O-: > However, given the situation on the Danube described by Strabo in
O-: the century before Christ, it doesn't sound like anyone was free of
O-: > "inter-mingling," especially with the Thracians:
Aye. It didn't get much better 271 to 1400 either.
O-: > "The language of the Daci is the same as that of the Getae. Among
O-: the Greeks, however, the Getae are better known because the
migrations
O-: > they make to either side of the Danube are continuous, and because
O-: > they are intermingled with the Thracians...
O-: > For at the present time these tribes [Scythians and Sarmatians],
as
O-: > well as the Bastarnian tribes, are intermingled with the Thracians
-
O-: > more indeed with those outside the Danube, but also with those
O-: > inside... " - Strabo, Geography, 7.3
Aye. I now see the Bastarnae as intermingled with, and the Getae as
defining of: Thracian (with major assistance from Dacians and Moesi).
All that defining well done and already going through redefinitions by
Greek and Romans influences before a Goth saw the Dniester.
Cu Stima;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania