Re: The "Lesser Goths" of Jordanes

--- In cybalist@..., x99lynx@... wrote:

> Torsten wrote:
> <Yes, true. But as far as I can tell, your "reappraisal" of

Jordanes' account

> is based what on nothing else than what you would wish to be the

case.>

>
> I don't think there's anyone on this list who buys Jordanes'

account 100%,

> word-for-word, as accurate history.

I do. As a working hypothesis until proven wrong.

>So the question is really what you
> believe and what you don't.

No.

>Somethings are more improbable than others. But
> a key factor in all this is Cassiodorus'/Jordanes' indisputable
>need to
> provide the Goths with a long and respectable history.

The key factor in your account of Jordanes' history is that you think
he was prepared to lie in order to embellish the truth, a "truth"
which springs from your preconceived notion of what the Goths should
be.

> And in that light, the idea that Jordanes consciously excluded the
> "Bastarnae/Peucini" from his telling is not really such a wild

idea.

>

Light?

> It's important to remember that Jordanes did not apparently believe
>that the
> Goths arrived in the area in the 2d century AD. His account has

them

> arriving many, many centuries before that and to some degree in

areas where

> his own authorities placed the Bastarnae.
>
> Could he or Cassiodorus/Jordanes have failed to notice the special

mention

> the Bastarnae receive in Dio, Strabo, Livy and Plutarch? Could

they have

> failed to notice that this "group" was not only described as
> Germanic-speakers but also disparaged for their lineage in an

essential

> source - Tacitus? How is it they receive one flippant mention in

Jordanes?

>
> Did it ever occur to Jordanes that the predecessors of the Goths

might not be

> the "Getae-speaking Dacians" but the Germanic-speaking Bastarnae?
>
> Is it plausible that he never considered that, given that HIS Goths

were on

> the Danube and eastward in the same areas as the Bastarnae at the

same time,

> according to his own time table? I think looking at what his own

sources

> said about the Bastarnae MIGHT suggest that Jordanes was trying to

avoid that

> name in his re-telling.
>
> I may not be the most objective person on this list. But I think

that anyone

> trying to be objective might be interested in this possibility. It

may not

> fit some of our preconceptions, but perhaps it might be worth

looking at,

> just as a double-check, if nothing more.

But if you take Jordanes at face value that is pretty close to what
he is actually saying, ie three stages (and I add the languages I
think would have been used)

I Somewhere in Bastarnian territory speaking Germanic
II Moesia, Dacia speaking Getic
III North of the sea of Azov speaking Gothic

>
> <You offer no proof or even circumstantial evidence other than that

you think

> it must have been so.>
>
> I don't think that anything "must be so" when it comes to this

subject

> matter. And I hope I don't give that impression. I do try to use

words like

> "perhaps" and "suspect" in order to convey my own uncertainty. At

this

> point, I'm merely working out the idea and I appreciate your

feedback, even

> though it might be negative at this point. All I ask is that you

give it a

> chance and consider whether, just maybe, there may not be some

small

> possibility it might have some merit.
>

I am of course glad you do that. But that is neither proof nor
circumstantial evidence. I look forward to you providing that.

> <<And BTW your essentialist interpretation of the success of

languages as

> depending on "their" will to borrow is rather outdated these days.>>
>
> Theories swing back and forth. I was raised in the environment of

American

> pragmatism (ie, Pierce, James, Popper) and historians like Gordon

Childe. So

> I tend to see language as primarily a tool for the exchange of

information.

> The fact that that tool follows structural rules is important.

But, as with

> any tool, that structure cannot interfere with the basic function,

or the

> tool will become useless. For me this has the force of simple

logic. And,

> as much as I'd like to, I can't be fashionable in forgetting that.

I hope

> you'll forgive me for being out-of-date.
>
> Steve

I am embarassed that I actually used that phrase. I can't very well
poke fun at Glen calling my sources outdated when I use that
terminology myself. And actually your views on English are still
fashionable in many circles. I will provide a better answer in
another posting.

Torsten