False Scandinavian Origins

george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
"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."

This is simply not true. The "indubitably Scandinavian elements" in Wielbark
are minuscule or non-existent. The archaeology supplies little or nothing to
support the "Scandinavian origin" theory.

There's a lot about this whole Goth story that is often repeated but when you
look closer, they're often not correct or don't support what's being said.
I'll try to answer these one at a time, so at least the readers on this list
don't get the impression that this whole "Goth migration" thing doesn't have
a lot of holes in it. It has a lot of holes in it. Here's one example.

#1 - There is barely anything left of Kossina et al's self-proclaimed 'proof'
that Wielbark originated in Scandinavia. Every "key elements" (except maybe
one) has been definitively shown to be continental in origin - older,
sometimes much, much older, than the earliest Scandinavian appearance.

Peter Heather in "The Goths" summarizes the story of the downfall of the
Scandinavian theory (pb 1998, pp. 13-14).

However, Heather and others still think that one basic element is left in the
rubble. These are certain burial practices involving stone circles, barrows,
dolmens and stone-clad graves.

This last Scandinavian element does not help George, however.

Wielbark is well under way when the only "Scandinavian" element left shows
up. These burial practices are only really found well AFTER George's 50 AD
date.

As Heather writes, the latest evidence "minimize the extent of any possible
Scandinavian contribution to the Wielbark culture.... the stone circles do
not appear among the earliest Wielbark cemeteries. These can be dated B1b
(early to mid-first century AD), while stone circles are found only in the
period B2 (c. AD 100 or later.) If the stone circles do reflect a
Scandinavian involvement in Wielbark culture, it was not in their creation."
- Heather, p. 25.

The evidence is actually even smaller than Heather reports. There are whole
sections of Wielbark in which circles and barrow graves essentially NEVER
appear, e.g., in the region of Greater Poland. (See, e.g., Tadeusz
Makiewicz's web page on "Goths in Greater Poland" - "We do not, however, have
any evidence of stone circles or cobble-clad graves from Greater Poland,
barrow burials being a rarity - only three having been recorded in the
peripheral zone of this region.")

Also, "British school" archaeologists, like Alasdair Whittle, have questioned
how stone circles, dolmens and barrow graves could possibly establish a
Scandinavian origin when highly similar practices are known to have been
widespread and continued into the iron-age in both western and southern
Europe. This suggests that they did not originate in Scandinavia. It
appears for example that nearly identical burials were the common predecessor
to both Celtic and early Greek circular temples. And since such practices in
general represent the transfer of religious beliefs, they do not necessarily
support the idea of a migration.

The first appearance of Christian graves in Scandinavia, for example,
certainly could not support the claim of a mass migration from the south.
How can some earlier grave types possibly prove a migration from the north?

In any case, there are archaeologists who would see no proof at all of
Scandinavian origins or even migration in the stone circles, etc.

Finally, Heather mentions another problem with the meager Scandinavian
evidence, perhaps from a linguistic point of view. The stone circles in
Scandinavia apparently are never found in the region associated with the
ancient "Goutai" or "Gutae." (p. 27)

BTW, I should note that I am using Peter Heather because he is a major
authority and advocate for identifying Wielbark with the Goths.

And all he can say is "from an archaeological evidence, the most that can be
claimed is that a few 'Gothic' aristocratic clans migrated from Scandinavia
to northern Poland." (p. 26) Needless to say, from a truly objective point
of view, I think he is going overboard. At best what can be claimed is that
an imported burial custom appeared in Scandinavia and VERY soon after in
Northern Poland. How that custom arrived at either place has not been
adequately investigated.

#2 - What Heather does not mention is that the reversal of Kossina's paradigm
raises a completely different set of issues. Issues that calls for a
parallel reversal in the old thinking about where the "Goths" came from.
What about all those other elements? What do they NOW prove, since they are
no longer Scandinavian?

Most of Kossina's elements not only did not originate in Scandinavia, they
also did not originate in north western Europe. Most also did not originate
in southwestern Europe. Most can be identified in their earliest form with
the eastern Danube, the Balkans and possibly the Ukraine.

If these erroneously identified "Scandinavian" elements proved in everyone's
mind as late as 1955 that the Goths came from Scandinavia, then what do they
prove now that their origins have been correctly identified?

Why don't the same elements "prove" where the Goths came from now? Even
though it is no longer Scandinavia? Or does this evidence work only in one
direction? Or is it only good if it supports one theory, but not another?

I guess the answer is that many of us don't want to believe that the Goth's
"migration" may have been essentially back to where they originally came
from. Kossina's "elements of Gotho-Gepidian culture" however NOW seem to
say that that is exactly what may have happened. What's proof for the goose
should be proof for the gander.

Another corrolary question is: Since Kossina's key Gothic elements did not
come from Scandinavia, how did they reach Scandinavia or, for that matter,
Poland?

#3 - George wrote: "In phase B the Wielbark culture expanded southward into
areas previously occupied by the Przeworsk culture which it replaced there."

Just want to point out that, if you go by the maps in Heather (pp 36-37),
Przeworsk is also doing some serious expanding. In fact, the two cultures
appear to go southeastwards pretty much parallel to each other. They seem to
be headed in the same direction, side by side. And Przeworsk appears to
reach further south and seems to cover a good deal more territory.

Which makes me again wonder why anyone would connect this culture with what
Tacitus tells us was an assumed name for some federation of tribes -
"Vandal." Ptolemy certainly doesn't put them where Przeworsk is at the time.

If one is going to rely on Tacitus and Ptolemy to prove where the Goths were,
I would think one would ALSO have to account for the "major" tribal group who
they both say are in the area - the Venethi. Or are we saying here that
Ptolemy absolutely correctly identified one of the many "minor" tribes
(Gythones) but made up the "major" one, mistakenly locating the Venethi right
where Wielbark would have first met Przeworsk?

Steve Long


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