---
x99lynx@... wrote:
> george knysh <gknysh@... writes:
> The fact that
> the Greek-speaking
> Dexippos did not identify the Goths with the Getae
> is rather significant.
>(SL) 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.
*****GK: Exactly. And there was an awareness that
without the explanation that "Goths might be called
Getae" NO ONE WOULD "GET" (:=)) IT... Furthermore,
note that this casual identification made by Aelius
Spartianus for jocular purposes was not picked up by
anyone for nearly a century. Until Claudius
Claudianus, everyone continued to write about the
Goths as Goths, not as Getae.*****
>
>(SL) 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.
*****GK: What would be the point of arguing with a
comment by Spartianus to the effect of "let's call the
Goths Getae so that we can make fun of
Caracalla"?*****
>(SL) 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.
*****GK: In matters of historical hermeneutics we
should go with what is infinitely more likely than
with what is at best an extremely marginal
possibility. The fact that no one made the
identification Goths=Getae before Spartianus, i.e.
some 300 years after the Goths arrived on the
historical scene, and the fact that no one picked up
on this identification for nearly 100 years after it
was made, in other words the fact that in the period
0-400 AD NO ONE expect Spartianus said Goths=Getae
certainly indicates that the confusion was hardly part
of the common knowledge of the time.*****
>
>(SL) 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.
*****GK: I don't think so. Not in the absence of
further corroboration. One may doubt anything or
practically anything of course. But every doubt is not
a reasonable doubt. And in this particular case, I
don't see any reason to contend that the equation
Goths=Getae was common knowledge prior to the 5th
century. What would be useful is an explanation of why
and how this particular equation arose at that
time.*****
>(SL) 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
> some 100 years later appear at the frontier fleeing
> from the Huns.
*****GK: In this case though this is an eminently
reasonable inference, backed up by archaeology.****
(SL)Strabo's
> and Tacitus' Goths seem to be in the wrong place
> particularly.
*****GK: Why? What is the "right" place for the Goths?
There is an ongoing discussion on this issue on the
Germanic list BTW. In the case of Strabo, what we know
is that the Goths in ca. 16/18 AD were located east of
the Elbe, beyond the Lugii (and others) and somewhat
south of the Baltic seashore. In his Annales, Tacitus
does not tell us where the Goths are located, but
confirms Strabo's point that in the second decade of
the 1rst c. AD they were subjects of the Marcoman king
Maroboduus. In his Germania, Tacitus locates them west
of the Vistula and again (as did Strabo) beyond the
Lugii and somewhat below the southern shoreline of the
Baltic. After much thought on the matter, I think it
is entirely reasonable to conclude that when they
emerge into history (in Strabo and in the Annals of
Tacitus re the years 16-19 AD)the Goths were part of
the Wielbark culture area (phase A+B) along with other
groups, esp. the coastal Venedi and Celtic
Lemovii.****
(SL) Pliny's Goths
> are part of the Vandal confederation.
*****GK: Pliny doen't mention any such
"confederation". He only lists peoples which he
believes to be "Vandilic". I confess that I found this
a bit confusing at first, due to the linkage between
the various Vandalic groups and the Przeworsk culture.
But there is an explanation. In phase B the Wielbark
culture expanded southward into areas previously
occupied by the Przeworsk culture which it replaced
there. This expansion occurred ca. 50 AD, and was
accompanied by the appearance of indubitably
Scandinavian elements within Wielbark, precisely in
the newly occupied territory. Pliny published his
"Natural History" in 77 AD. He thus reflected the
arrival of the Goths into a previously "Vandalic"
area, and counted them as "Vandals". Now this is of
course an inference. But it is a reasonable one.*****
(SL) And, along
> with the Gythones, Ptolemy
> also offers up in the same general region,
> Piengitae, Exobygitae, Sargati,
*****GK: It is a reasonable inference that Ptolemy's
"Gythones" and Tacitus' "Gotones" are one and the
same. True, Tacitus locates them west of the Vistula,
and Ptolemy has them east of the Vistula. At first I
believed that this was indicative of Ptolemy's having
garbled things somewhat. But I am no longer quite so
sure. Tacitus was reflecting the situation of ca. 100
AD, and Ptolemy approximately 50 years later. We know
from very recent archaeological digs and studies in
Poland that the Gothic movement towards the southeast
was not instant and massive, that they carried on
pressure warfare against the Vandals for generations,
slowly infiltrating and dominatring more and more of
the latter's Przeworsk territory, and incorporating
Vandalic groups into their own community. Ptolemy's
localization is thus very much in line with what
archaeology tells us of Gothic expansionism in the 2nd
c. AD.******
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards�
http://movies.yahoo.com/