Goths vs. Scythians

[docoflove1974]

I'm reading TheGoths in the Fourth Century (Heather and Matthews, 2004) for a review, and I'm starting to get turned around here. I know that in an earlier thread I had asked for information on the Scythians as mentioned in Herodotus--which again I must thank our various members for. But I'm trying to straighten a few things out...so help me arrange my thoughts correctly.

 

[*]I knew that the Goths (the Germanic tribe) originated in what is now Eastern Europe (Eastern Rumania, around the Danube Delta), and that they moved west due to the advancing Huns. But in various texts in this book, which were written by Roman orators and dignitaries in the 4th century CE, they are called Scythians, as well as occasionally Goths.

[*]It has been proven that linguistically the Proto-Germanic speaking peoples were one of the earlier groups to 'branch off' of the Proto-Indo-European tree--after Anatolian (Hittite) but before Celtic, Italic, Hellenic and others. (Polom

[sonic]

I knew that the Goths (the Germanic tribe) originated in what is now Eastern Europe (Eastern Rumania, around the Danube Delta), and that they moved west due to the advancing Huns. But in various texts in this book, which were written by Roman orators and dignitaries in the 4th century CE, they are called Scythians, as well as occasionally Goths.

 

 

The Scythians and the Goths are not the same. Ancient writers maintained the names of ancient tribes as part of the genre: hence, Goths are called Scythians only because by the fourth century they are living in the place previously associated with Scythians. It's just a topos, not an attempt at 'ethnic' identification.

 

Sorry of that's a little unclear, but my time is extremely limited at the moment!

[Kosmo]

Goths were not originated from the Black Sea area. They came here from the Baltic. When they arrived in the steppe of today's Ukraine Scythians existed no more, being replaced by related Sarmatians. Indeed, the name scythians for goths (and for other much later people) was a historic topos, a name taken from old books to give a classic feel to contemporaneous events.

[docoflove1974]

Ok, this is making more sense...I was trying to figure out the time line, and there was quite a bit of a jump between Herodotus' writings and the 4th century.

[Northern Neil]

Goths were not originated from the Black Sea area. They came here from the Baltic.

,,,possibly from the island still called Gotland, Sweden.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Goths were not originated from the Black Sea area. They came here from the Baltic.

,,,possibly from the island still called Gotland, Sweden.

Salve, Amici. So explained it the Romano-gothic Jordanes, DE ORIGINE ACTIBUSQUE GETARUM, cp. IV:

Ex hac igitur Scandza insula quasi officina gentium aut certe velut vagina nationum cum rege suo nomine Berig Gothi quondam memorantur egressi: qui ut primum e navibus exientes terras attigerunt, ilico nomen loci dederunt. Nam odieque illic, ut fertur, Gothiscandza vocatur. Vnde mox promoventes ad sedes Vlmerugorum, qui tunc Oceani ripas insidebant, castra metati sunt eosque commisso proelio propriis sedibus pepulerunt, eorumque vicinos Vandalos iam tunc subiugantes suis aplicavere victoriis. Vbi vero magna populi numerositate crescente et iam pene quinto rege regnante post Berig Filimer, filio Gadarigis, consilio sedit, ut exinde cum familiis Gothorum promoveret exercitus. Qui aptissimas sedes locaquae dum quereret congrua, pervenit ad Scythiae terras, quae lingua eorum Oium vocabantur:

"Now from this island of Scandza (Gotland?), as from a hive of races or a womb of nations, the Goths are said to have come forth long ago under their king, Berig by name. As soon as they disembarked from their ships and set foot on the land, they straightway gave their name to the place. And even today it is said to be called Gothiscandza. Soon they moved from here to the abodes of the Ulmerugi, who then dwelt on the shores of Ocean, where they pitched camp, joined battle with them and drove them from their homes. Then they subdued their neighbors, the Vandals, and thus added to their victories. But when the number of the people increased greatly and Filimer, son of Gadaric, reigned as king--about the fifth since Berig--he decided that the army of the Goths with their families should move from that region. In search of suitable homes and pleasant places they came to the land of Scythia, called Oium in that tongue".

 

and ibid, cp. V:

Quorum mansione prima in Scythiae solo iuxta paludem Meotidem, secundo in Mysiam Thraciamque et Daciam, tertio supra mare Ponticum rursus in Scythia legimus habitasse:

"We read that on their first migration the Goths dwelt in the land of Scythia near Lake Maeotis. On the second migration they went to Moesia, Thrace and Dacia, and after their third they dwelt again in Scythia, above the Sea of Pontus".

Edited June 21, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[docoflove1974]

Oh gotcha...Jordanes is mentioned as a source in this book, but nothing on him directly (at least, not yet, and I'm mostly finished with the book). I have a trip lined up shortly to a couple of libraries, so hopefully this becomes even clearer. Thanks, Asclepiades!

[sonic]

Oh gotcha...Jordanes is mentioned as a source in this book, but nothing on him directly (at least, not yet, and I'm mostly finished with the book). I have a trip lined up shortly to a couple of libraries, so hopefully this becomes even clearer. Thanks, Asclepiades!

 

In his book 'Goths and Romans, 332-489' (Oxford Historical Monographs), Heather criticizes Jordanes and drives large holes through some of his 'history'. If I remember correctly, Heather sees the Goths as forming from local tribesmen rather than migrations from Scandinavia. I must admit that Heather' theories sound plausible. Maybe you should check this out?

[Kosmo]

The island of Scandza it's probably the Scandinavian peninsula where an area named G

[docoflove1974]

In his book 'Goths and Romans, 332-489' (Oxford Historical Monographs), Heather criticizes Jordanes and drives large holes through some of his 'history'. If I remember correctly, Heather sees the Goths as forming from local tribesmen rather than migrations from Scandinavia. I must admit that Heather' theories sound plausible. Maybe you should check this out?

 

It's on the list to check out, Sonic, yes. He and Matthews do the same with the various texts in this book, too, something that I find refreshing. For example, in the examples of Themistius' Orationes (8 and 10 are translated here), there is constant comparison to the writings of Ammianus Marcellinus and

Zosimus (and others) for 'the facts', as well as other secondary sources.

 

And thanks, Kosmo, for yet another great link! I guess Wikipedia is improving!

Edited June 21, 2008 by docoflove1974

[sonic]

The island of Scandza it's probably the Scandinavian peninsula where an area named G

[ASCLEPIADES]

The island of Scandza it's probably the Scandinavian peninsula where an area named G

[Kosmo]

I know that there are some historians, especially in Britain, that deny migrations and place the accent on the creation of new identities. While this is interesting and opens new paths I have no doubts that migrations occured and there are many well recorded modern examples.

We know that goths were german speaking and we see people with german names in places were before there were none. Did the sarmatians, celts and dacians of the Black Sea area became german speaking just thru cultural exchange with a distant population?

I see your point, archeologists looked for a change in the baltic area and when they found something they corelated it with their written sources. But it's harder for me to believe that goths resulted from the changes of sarmatian society.

 

You're welcome Nephele! Wikipedia it's getting better. I've recently spent a lot of time reading good quality things about more obscure things like the polish-lithuanian republic.

[sonic]

We know that goths were german speaking and we see people with german names in places were before there were none. Did the sarmatians, celts and dacians of the Black Sea area became german speaking just thru cultural exchange with a distant population?

 

I accept the point completely, but I am not sure we need to see such a dramatic migration as one from the Baltic to the Danube. Why not from nearby due to population increase/political and military pressure?

 

 

I see your point, archeologists looked for a change in the baltic area and when they found something they corelated it with their written sources.

 

That's always been a problem for archaeologists. Only in fairly recent times have they started to look at excavations in their own terms rather than trying to tie them in with written sources. This may be linked to modern historians actually looking at the sources afresh and realizing that they may be in error!

[docoflove1974]

I see your point, archeologists looked for a change in the baltic area and when they found something they corelated it with their written sources.

 

That's always been a problem for archaeologists. Only in fairly recent times have they started to look at excavations in their own terms rather than trying to tie them in with written sources. This may be linked to modern historians actually looking at the sources afresh and realizing that they may be in error!

 

I think this is true of many areas in the humanities and social sciences. I know that it's a constant battle with linguistics; we want to use the 'early' sources and handbooks, as they are often great resources, but at the same time the various flaws in perspective are too much of an issue to ignore. Or, one camp can't accept the research of another, purely on philosophical reasons and not necessarily on the basis of evidence.