Hi Steve;
Perhaps we can proceed better if you clarify your question. I
believe I have provided narrowing input to assist in that clarification,
and to explain why there might be [apparent] mixed references to
Goth/Getae by the very same people who named the place where the Goth
appear: Getarum...after possessing, redefining or disrupting the
previous Getae center and states. Your stronger previous approach was
to suggest that the one < must > be the other, which also seems to be
the point of your stretch here on the question. It was opposed then;
and it is opposed now, not very metaphorically; even if you continue to
approach the question that way
:-). I have also explained why the Getae references disappeared before
the Goth showed up. It would seem that your intent {still} is to
insinuate that those once called Getae came to be called Goth.
I am no longer on the previously named list, because of some of
the attitudes presented and supported that you also mention. (No
reflection on your question there, I find it an honest and useful error
:-), wrapped in a serious attempt to clarify valid points..even if
accompanied by a hardheaded Torsten like focus on an invalid position
you wish to support :-) Some comments on that list at the time,
however, were unforgivable ..such as archaeology presented without
interest in time, people, distinctions in populations; and suggestions
that there was no need to identify, address or attempt to resolve
apparent conflicts with the texts or across disciplines.
Living Getae had become unrecognizable through political change
by early AD. Any still about in groups would have been called Dacian or
Free Dacian. (or continued under other tribal names with local identity
surviving the disruptions to that point [Carp and Costoboc]). The
Geto-Daci reference is a much later scholarly construct, I believe,
reflecting simply: the near impossibility in distinguishing between
them linguistically, culturally and pinpointing borders between them by
the time written notice began to occur; as well as real regional
assimilation into one cultural group + intrusives (which definitely
included Celts and easterners); and transition from tribal to national
structures in the region. Excuse my presumption, but if you are NOT
presenting this false argument that: (If living Getae are not
identifiable in the 4th AD and Goth is, then it supports a position that
they are one.); then clarify please.
I can't provide you a reference that does not exist, but I can
take the steam out of your apparent position that the question allows
support for a transferal of center, identity, and name for the same
people. Your biggest error (IMO) is refusing to accept that very early
Goth references are MUCH later and in a different place (initially) than
much earlier Getae references in precisely the same category of source
(Chronicler texts). That is not my opinion or interpretation..it is
fact. The issue is valid, but I am about two weeks behind in this
thread, and missing pieces of input trying to keep up; with good and
interesting questions questions also outstanding from George (what with
yahoo disruptions and other commitments)..lets cut to the difference:
(Me): Getae and Goth are not and were never synonymous terms.
(You): they "might" be.
Da?
Cu Stima;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
O-: From: stevelong02 Sunday, March 24, 2002 1:35 AM
O-: To:
cybalist@yahoogroups.com
O-: Subject: [tied] Getae and Gothi Together
O-:
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. I've asked on
O-: other lists and in private posts for anyone to contradict me on
this.
O-: No one has so far. (Not to say someone couldn't, but no one has.)"
O-:
O-: "Rex REPLIED
O-: > I disagree. Some much more qualified than I challenged in detail
on
O-: > EuroArch a year ago...and I argued against as well. In any case:
O-: > consider the position challenged anew. :-)
O-:
O-: Don't do that Rex. Or I'll be forced to metaphorically slap you in
O-: the cheek with a metaphorical gauntlet and call you (metaphorically)
O-: a knave and a disassembler. NO ONE supplied such a reference to
O-: living "Getae" at the same time there were living "Goths" around.
O-: And neither have you. Not saying that you couldn't. But you sure
as
O-: hell haven't.
O-:
O-: (And, BTW, if you looked at that list lately, you'll find that in
O-: response to a fellow named samrubin, who made the reasonable
argument
O-: that the "Venethi" of Tacitus COULD have been spoken some form of
O-: early Slavic, the moderator himself answered by thoroughly
dismissing
O-: your "ancient texts" as pretty much useless for archaeology. So
O-: I'd suggest -- but I think you already know this -- that you
O-: shouldn't rely too much on that list for support of your own
O-: theories.)
O-:
O-: Rex complains, on the other hand, "that damage done to the concept
of
O-: the region (eastern Danube) by library driven views limited to
O-: interpretations (with out modern arch) from Roman and Church Slavic
O-: writings, in that century continue to befuddle this list"
O-:
O-: I must point out that modern archaeology PROVES NOTHING about any
O-: people who might have been known as the "Getae" in ancient times.
O-: There's some evidence, but only the prejudging can tell us what it
O-: means. I'd like to know how many times archaeologists actually have
O-: found an inscription with the word "Getae" on it. Among western
Iron
O-: Age archeaologists like John Collis such connections between ethnic
O-: designation and material remains with no writing on it are
considered
O-: pretty much guaranteed to be wrong. (E.g., the long string of
O-: textually "guaranteed" Etruscan sites in Italy that came up as
O-: LaTene. Not Celtic, LaTene. The difference is important.)
O-:
O-: I'm sorry, but the archaeology is very unclear. And one good reason
O-: for that. Modern Japanese cars and American music CDs don't tell us
O-: a thing about the language or the culture of who is driving or
O-: listening. And back then we shouldn't expect anything different.
O-:
O-: And the same goes with names. My point has been nothing more than
O-: that the OBJECTIVE evidence doesn't prove the Goth/Getae name didn't
O-: happen because let's say the Getae thought it was neat to be called
O-: Goths and vice-versa. Or that there weren't Getae who were Goths.
O-: There is some possibility that this name mixing was some kind of an
O-: accurate reflection of what happened. And I'm afraid that Rex (and
O-: George) don't know otherwise.
O-:
O-: There is a key reason for this position and its not just the ancient
O-: texts. It's right there in our histories. Those Native-Americans
O-: for example who don't like the name "Indians" wonder why that
O-: particular obvious and isolated mistake hasn't been corrected in 500
O-: years. With paltry and confused evidence like we have from ancient
O-: text, wouldn't we assume that modern English-speaking Americans once
O-: "occupied" all of North and South America? Or that the modern
O-: British speak the Celtic of the Britons or that the Franks spoke
O-: French? And I think I've mentioned the incredible journey the name
O-: Volcae apparently took to become the name Vlachs.
O-:
O-: And can I ask how one can possibly consider the later "Scythian" and
O-: "Getae" as mere conventions without AT LEAST entertaining the
O-: possibility that the early "Scythian" and "Getae" names were also
O-: mere conventions, applied without a great deal of care to one group
O-: or another.
O-:
O-: I'm sorry but the clear evidence is that the Getae/Goth connection
O-: occurred VERY EARLY in the history of the Goth name. That's the
O-: evidence on its face. My theory is that it all reflected more than
O-: just simple confusion. That it was motivated at least by the need
to
O-: leave the old "Bastarnae" name behind. Rex's and George's theories
O-: are also based on lots of inferences. None of this stuff is
anywhere
O-: as certain as Rex has made it out to be.
O-:
O-: (A side note: As far as archeaology proving that the "Goths" who
O-: appear on the Danube in the third century AD were the same as
O-: "Wielbark" culture: the fact is that most or all of Wielbark is not
O-: Scandinavian in origin. That misimpression is the lingering legacy
O-: of Kossina. In fact, a good part of Wielbark identified by Kossina
O-: as northern (e.g., the serpent headed bracelets and such) seem to
O-: have originated long before in the area of the Danube. Heather's
O-: argument is probably the strongest in favor of a 2d century AD
O-: migration. But it is very circumstantial and pivots on the
O-: assumption
O-: that key elements of Wielbark did not come from the south. And that
O-: is JUST an assumption. It certainly does not jive with the spread
of
O-: iron technology or burial practices to the region.)
O-:
O-: Steve Long
O-:
O-:
O-: .............
O-:
O-:
O-: ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
O-:
O-:
O-:
O-: Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/