Re: Getae or Goths

--- Max Dashu <maxdashu@...> wrote:

> So does this mean that the "Goths" that Jordanes
> wrote about in his
> story of the haliorunnae being expelled by the
> Gothic king, mating
> with demons, and giving birth to Huns were really
> Getae?
>
> Or that the "Gothic" translation of the bible really
> wasn't?
>
> Max

****GK: Nothing of the kind. We simply compare what
contemporary historians wrote about the Getae of their
times and reject ex post facto attribution of these
events to the later Germanic Goths of the Wielbark and
Tchernyakhiv cultures by Cassiodorus/Jordanes. The
Haliurunnae episode might in fact be Gothic (it's
presented as stemming from "old traditions", but
sounds to me as a post res perditas Gothic invention).
One could check Orosius for this, but since it refers
to the Huns (unknown before ca. 370 CE) it can hardly
be older AFAIK. There is no problem about the Gothic
bible. Ulfilas was a Goth, not a Getan/Dacian.****

>
> >GK: The Getae of Jordanes were well known to
> >classical writers. There was nothing "nondescript"
> >about them. The Getae of BCE and I-II cs.CE were
> >Getae, not Goths. Their history was later
> "borrowed"
> >by Gothic historians.

P.S. I think there is something in the archives about
Goth vs. Getan incl. a contribution of mine about St
Jerome if I remember right.

>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs