[tied] Re: The "Lesser Goths" of Jordanes

--- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > > > > > >(Steve) I don't think there's anyone on
> > this
> > > > list
> > > > > who buys
> > > > > > Jordanes'
> > > > > > account 100%,
> > > > > > > word-for-word, as accurate history.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Torsten)I do. As a working hypothesis until
> > > > proven
> > > > > wrong.
> > > (TORSTEN)But where is the factual
> > > > evidence that proves
> > > > him (them) wrong?
> > >
> > > *****GK: What exactly do you mean by "factual
> > > evidence"? Lay out the parameters of what you
> > would
> > > consider proof or disproof and we'll see if there
> > is
> > > any need to go on. BTW, can you name us a single
> > > reputable contemporary scholar who agreed with
> > > Jerome's identification? If not, why do you
> > suppose
> > > they didn't? Lack of brainpower?******
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > (TORSTEN)As in "contemporary with Jerome"?
>
> *****GK: Sorry for the typo. I meant "agrees".
> Scholars contemporary to us, like Heather (later cited
> by Steve).*****
> >
>
>

As for the brainpower of present scholars I believe it to be
approximately the same 1500 cc Jordanes and Jerome had between their
ears. They however had the advantage of being 1500 years closer in
time.

I would like to see a "factual disproof" in the Popper sense, eg.
archaeologically. If I should fail to provide a not improbable
interpretation of Jordanes' account, that is in agreement with the
archaeological evidence, as in our previous discussion on "*Odin* on
Fyn".

Torsten