Goths, Getae, Piengitae and Sargati

george knysh <gknysh@... writes:
******GK: Valuable texts and comments. The fact that the Greek-speaking
Dexippos did not identify the Goths with the Getae is rather significant.
Spartianus' words ("..et Gothi Getae dicerentur")sounds very much like an
innovation, viz., the application of an old term to a new reality. What is
curious here is the implication that Goths should be considered Dacians
(given Strabo's earlier terminological explication). I believe that
historical scholarship remains undecided on the question of whether Caracalla
actually did fight the Goths while passing through Dacia, or whether this
referred to skirmishes with the "free" Dacians (incl. Carpi) across the
border. I suspect that the story is an addition by Spartianus to the
independently sufficient dark pun by Helvetius
concerning Caracalla's "victory" over his assassinated brother.*****

Now. let me make a point regarding George's reply here.

The fact that "Spartianus' words... sound very much like an innovation" OR
that "the story is an addition by Spartianus" does not affect my premise .
Whether Caracalla actually fought Goths is also somewhat irrelevant.

The point was that about 50 years after the name "Goth" is first mentioned in
Greek texts, the connection between Getae and Goth was already being made in
some written record. And not just due to a misstroke of the pen. There was
an awareness that they were two different names.

This and the other examples I gave confirm something for me. And as a matter
of a very simple piece of logic.

The names were interchanged AT LEAST this early and NO ONE argued with that
connection, as far as we know. No one wrote, wait, you've got this all
wrong. Not after Spartianus or Claudian or the Arch or Orosius or Jordanes
said it. No Goths complained. No Getae complained. Ofcourse, they may
have. But we have no evidence of it.

Now ,just this thought about nature of this "evidence." What I've described
is in no way proof that the Getae were the Goths. It does HOWEVER seem to
say that no one at that time had any problem making the connection. Possibly
even including the Goths themselves.

One can try to impeach this evidence, attempt to undermine it, call it mere
confusion. Sure, be my guest. But honestly that does not make it go away.
George, you can say it sounds like an "innovation" to you, etc., and I
respect that. I really don't know. But you know, of course, you really
can't know either. You could be wrong. It could be exactly what it appears
to be - a piece of the "common knowledge" of the time.

It's in the nature of these list discussions that one does not act too
uncertain about one's position. But the truth is that this is all guesswork
and inference about which reasonable people may differ.

I don't offer this as if it is some kind of final proof. I know I could be
wrong. Heck, all this Getae stuff could have been added centuries later by
some medieval redactor. But just for the sake of seeing the question from
both sides, let me ask this: if it is true, how would that affect our thinki
ng?

If it is true that the Getae and Goths were interchangeable names much
earlier than our first written record of it - often the case, one would think
- then that might have disturbing implications. It might mean that these
words didn't really mean what we think they meant. And that they could have
been used to refer to people in ways we don't understand. Because we don't
expect you can be Goth and Getae at the same time.

(Perhaps Getae came to have some kind of life-style/religious meaning that
had a life of its own, as in Roman>Roman Church>Romanish - a 17th century
English Protestant word for a Catholic. Consider what Goth means in modern
pop culture and explain to me the wild historical trip that word took -
barbarians to cathedrals to vampire make-up! Why would we expect things be
different in ancient times?)

George also wrote:
'We know that the convergence Goth-Geta is not confirmed prior to the early
4th century. When the Goths emerge into history they are "Gutones" (1rst c.)
or "Gothi" (3rd c.) not "Getae".'

But it also takes an inference to conclude that any of the names from before
Dexippos referred to the same "Goths" he mentions or the group that would
some100 years later appear at the frontier fleeing from the Huns. Strabo's
and Tacitus' Goths seem to be in the wrong place particularly. Pliny's Goths
are part of the Vandal confederation. And, along with the Gythones, Ptolemy
also offers up in the same general region, Piengitae, Exobygitae, Sargati,
Cotenses, interestingly the Tyrangitae, a region called "the Sarmatian
Tyrgetas", also farther west, the Cotini, and the Gutae up north and lord
knows what else that might suggest the "G-" word - said in tongues we have
no real translateable written record of - like Thracian. (And BTW Jordanes
has his Goths migrating into the Ukraine about a thousand years before
Christ, so I guess we would need some leeway in pinning those particular
Goths down too.)

George also wrote:
**GK: Note again the curious fact that the Getae/Goths are not (ever?)
explicitly identified as Dacians. One feels as though the new "identity"
(Goths=Getae) could only be sustained if the old one (Getae=Daci) were not.***

And don't forget (Getae=Thracians). And that says something too, doesn't it?
If this persistent double identity thing could happen three times on the
record, it could have happened a dozen off the record. I think you can
forgive me for not seeing these names as being highly reliable for tracking
something as equally ephemeral as "a people."

Steve Long

...........................................................