[tied] Re: False Scandinavian Origins

The switch from B to C does not help anyway.   The Scandinavian element
simply arrives too late.  Wielbark has originated and expanded before the
stone circles, etc., show up in a limited part of Wielbark. (George also
wrote: "I am talking about the territory of
Wielbark phase C as per the map of Wolongiewicz,..."  The name is Wolagiewicz
and it's his map updated by Scukin (accents omitted) that was used in
Heather.)

George also wrote:
"What I wrote above is perfectly in synch with the opinion of a majority of
contemporary Polish field archaeologists, who see Wielbark as essentially
autochtonous,....  So much of the remainder of Steve's latest message is
beside the point."

Now, George.  That's not a very nice way to sidestep my main argument.  What
those archaeologists say did NOT answer my question.

Up until the 1950's, archaeologists following Kossina, found all kinds of
Scandinavian origin evidence in Wielbark.  It was bought wholesale and is
STILL being repeated in encyclopedias, histories and on this list. 

Well, it turns out all that evidence is NOT Scandinavian.  Instead NOW almost
all of that "origin" evidence says Wielbark was NOT Scandinavian.  So what do
Polish (and of course Ukrainian) archaeologists say that all that evidence
NOW says.

George says those archaeologist now see "Wielbark as essentially
autochtonous,..." But that would mean, prima facie, junking all the old
evidence that once proved Wielbark was Scandinavian.  BECAUSE that evidence
does not show local origin, either.

I have no problem with Polish archaeologists junking Kossina.  But perhaps
the next and better step is to consider junking Jordanes.  After all,
Kossina's work on Gothic origins was what supposedly confirmed Jordanes. 
Consider Jordanes unconfirmed.

The evidence Kossina used is still there, it just doesn't say Scandinavian. 
And it doesn't say "autochtonous" either.

This is important.  Kossina's theory was NOT disproved by showing his
"Gotho-Gepidian" elements were autochtonous.

They were disproved by showing that those elements originated elsewhere. 
And, of Kossina's seven elements listed and cited by Heather, six were shown
to have already existed along the Danube, in the Balkans and arguably in the
Ukraine.

If everyone once said Wielbark is of Scandinavian origin based on this
evidence, then it matters that the very same evidence NOW says Wielbark was
of Danubian origin.  Unless the evidence never really counted in the first
place.  (But that sounds like a bias is in operation, doesn't it?)

As far as saying that later Scandinavians were some kind of aristocratic
elite among the Wielbark, I don't see how that makes any sense, either. 
Polish archaeologists agree there were very few of them.  And I've seen
nothing archaeologically that says they were elite.  That's just Jordanes and

Kossina again.

George also brings up "Makiewicz is nevertheless agreeable to a

Scandinavian element being present in Poland's Wielbark. Let me remind Steve

of an elementary fact of historical hermeneutics. In order for the
"Scandinavian origin" theory reported by Jordanes to have credibility, all
that is required is for a small number of upper class people to have migrated
into Poland or Ukraine at some point,..."

Those are very minimum requirements and not scientific at all.  We would
expect some Scandinavian influence archaeologically even if Jordanes was
totally wrong.  In fact, one could argue that most of Kossina's elements
actually traveled to Scandinavia via Wielbark - the other way around. 
Perhaps Wielbark elite migrated to Scandinavia.

Steve,

How does your map look like?

Scandinavia is a wide conception. Jordanes never spoke about Scandinavia. He spoke about Skandza which everything points to be Gotland. I am not sure if you know what Gotland is. It is not Skandinavia! It is Gotland, the large island in the Baltic, with its own culture and history. It was the commercial and cultural center in the Baltic for 2000 years.

Before the Wielbark culture many signs say it was a common culture in the Baltic with Gotland,coastal Poland and some coastal areas in Sweden. The Gotlanders as clever merchants were probably involved in the ember trade. The riches found in the Gotlandic soil outweighs all other areas. There are proof of Gotlandic trading stations on the east coast of the Baltic during Bronze age.

Have you read Anders Kaliff's Gothic connections.

http://www.stavgard.com/Gothic-L/gothicconnectio_/default.htm

 

So none of this says in any way that Jordanes is historically accurate.  All
kinds of convoluted hermeneutics can and has supported Jordanes.  But all the
archaeology says is that maybe some Wielbarkians adopted what might have been
SOME - not all - Swedish religious practices - and again they might not even
have been Scandinavian in origin. 

But, in terms of credibility, Jordanes' origin theory is that it happened
before 1000 BC.  And its supposed to account for the Gothic nation, including
Ulfila's poor folk and not just an Odin-style ruling family.

We do have evidence of a mass migration out of Scandinavia or anywhere along
the Baltic at the time of Wielbark.   But there was one that happened about
250 BC. 

No this is not from Scandinavia. It is from Gotland.

We have earlier discussed this on Gothic-L and Swedish smaller groups of immigrants to Poland comes as you very well point out after the forming of the Wielbark.

Please don't confuse Gotland with Sweden.

Tore

--