![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Perhaps useful [1] . Also available on other sites including Academia.
I understand this to be a "Vienna school" coordinated work. (It seems Austria is into open access lately, so download before that changes!) This includes a new 2018 article by Steinacher which is more specifically about Gothic origins than his 2017 book which we've discussed in the past. Here are some relevant to our recent discussion of whether it is right to simply equate Goths and Gutones (and Gauts). I believe, as in previous articles he's written, he gives one of the clearest statements of a sort of up-dated "Vienna" thinking. He argues (less sceptically than the Toronto folks for example) that we can really say that the name was carried between these peoples, indicating it must have had some prestige, but that we can't say much more than that. His vision takes it as a starting point that instead of equating them, there is a continuous redefinition of Gothic or Gutonic "Identity". I place "Identity" in quotes to alert to the fact that in the more scholarly debates on these things, this is a controversial technical term right now. See for example this article text by Guy Halsall which reflects on the disagreements between some of the big names. These are from Steinacher's article:
In my opinion, such complicated ideas about changing identity aren't for our lead, to say the least, but they make it clear enough that we can not simply identify Goths and Gutones. (This is of course also something I've observed based on older sources. This article is not necessarily saying anything new in this respect, but it is an interesting one.) We can compare to his 2017 book:
My thoughts on some comparisons to the source favoured in our current article, Peter Heather. The idea that there needed to be a movement of a large number of people between the Vistula and the Black Sea (though not a simple migration) is of course also a popular one, because Heather has been arguing it for decades. His arguments used to be archaeological, but that evidence no longer seems to have much support (and has been criticized by historians with a more archaeological reputation, like Halsall and Curta). In his more recent mass market "Empires and Barbarians" he now argues that the Germanic language of the Goths proves significant movement of people because it means mothers had to have taught their children. At the same time he seems not to notice that he himself writes in the same passages, that these Germanic speakers reconquering areas where Germanic had probably been spoken for centuries by the Bastarnae. Furthermore he argues that the Goths' movement was linked to that of the Vandals, who were in the Carpathians already in the century before the Goths appeared. I have not found any scholarly acceptance or criticism of this "mothers" argument yet.
To be clear though: Heather thinks there is no evidence of such a movement from Scandinavia though, and his concept of a significant movement of people also explicitly means many small groups over a long period, not a simple migration.
Comparison to Goffart (who seems to fascinate people). Goffart is closer to the popular Vienna thinking that some might think. See Barbarian Tides p. 112 which does not specifically mention Gutones but shows acceptance of the idea that some peoples later found under Attila may have moved from the Polish region, and "do not lack pasts". However they "did not just happen to "move" from one settlement to the other in a mindless Brownian motion. How they transposed themselves is unknowable". (Reminiscent of the comments by Curta about Heather's billiard table model of migrations.) In short Goffart is a sceptic and points to the weakness of the evidence. I think he has been taken very seriously in this regard, including by Heather and the Vienna school.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The Černjachov culture is a mixture of all sorts of influences but most come from the existing cultures in the region. It is has been argued that evolves directly from the Wielbark culture of the lower Vistula and that the spread from Wielbark to Černjachov is archaeological proof of the Goths' migration from the shores of the Baltic. This notion should not be entirely rejected but it needs considerable modification. The source for the Gothic migration from Scandinavia is Jordanes' Getica, which is deeply problematic and certainly cannot be used as evidence for migration. The Wielbark culture begins earlier than the Černjachov but its later phases cover the same period as the latter. There is thus no chronological development from one to the other. Furthermore, although the Wielbark culture does spread up the Vistula during its history, its geographical overlap with the Černjachov culture is minimal. These facts make it improbable that the Černjachov culture was descended from the Wielbark. [...discussion of archaeological evidence...] This evidence will not support the idea of a substantial migration.
However, the Goths clearly spoke an east Germanic language, preserved in their apostle Wulfila's translation of the Gospels and other texts. Their personal names are Germanic and runes are known from the Černjachov area. This probably implies some migration into the region (although there were people regarded as 'Germanic' in the region before), probably during the third century, when imperial sources first attest the Goths north of the Danube. Where these newcomers came from cannot now be ascertained but the territory of the Wielbark culture is probable, though not on the basis of the archaeological evidence, as just discussed.[emphasis added] Halsall proposes that there was a cultural corridor involving the amber trade, and (p.134)
It seems most likely that in the confusion of the third century and, specifically, the Roman abandonment of the Carpathian basin a Germanic-speaking military elite was able to spread its power down the amber routes into the lands of the Sarmatians, Dacians, and Carpi and found a number of kingdoms, some grouped into a powerful confederacy.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
"The complex nature of society and politics north of the Danube does not directly concern this volume, which concentrates on western Europe, and excellent surveys of fourth-century Gothic society are readily available in English.73... 73 In English, the best are by Peter Heather, especially, and John Matthews: Heather (1998c), pp. 488–96; Heather and Matthews (1991), chs. 3–4; Matthews (1989), pp. 318–32. See also Kazanski (1991), pp. 29–59. The following account is based heavily upon these but with some differences of interpretation."See also: Thompson, E. A. (1961); Wolfram (1988), pp. 89–116; (1997), pp. 69–89." – Halsall, Guy (2007). Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376–568. Cambridge University Press. pp. 131–132. ISBN 9781107393325.
"Metalwork, personal ornaments and, above all,the distinctive habit of mixing inhumation and cremation within single cemeteries indicate that, in some ways, the Cernjachov culture was a direct descendant of the Germanic Wielbark culture which had dominated central and eastern Poland in the first two centuries A.D. On the other hand, wheel-turned Cernjachov pottery, in both technique and range of forms, descends directly from pottery in use around the Carpathians in the early centuries A.D., and is not dissimilar to Roman provincial wares... This throws up a crucially important but difficult question. To what extent did distinctions between immigrant Germanic and local non-Germanic populations, and between the different groups of Germanic immigrants, survive through the fourth century? Did the immigrant Goths absorb a large proportion of the indigenous population, or were social and political boundaries maintained? There has been a tendency recently to stress the multi-ethnic basis of the realms created by the Goths around the Black Sea: a necessary corrective to the outdated idea that a distinctive material culture must be associated with a single people.5 At the same time, the establishment of Gothic and other Germanic groups north of the Black Sea involved considerable competition with powers indigenous to the region. The immigrants did not create multi-ethnic confederations by negotiation, but intruded themselves by force, and it is quite clear that Dacian Carpi and nomadic Sarmatians, amongst others, were the losers inthe process. The original pattern of units created, therefore, was probably a mixture of dominant Germanic, especially Gothic, groups and sub-ordinate locals. Consonant with this is the fact that, viewed from across the frontier, Germanic immigrants were the obviously dominant force in this region; fourth-century Graeco-Roman sources mention only Goths north of the Danube. Likewise, the Gothic language of Ulfilas' Bible is Germanic. A mixed population, then, but not an equal one, and this lack of equality is likely to have hindered absorption, since dominant groups had every interest in maintaining their superiority." – Heather, Peter (1997). "Goths and Huns, c. 320–425". In Cameron, Averil; Garnsey, Peter (eds.). The Late Empire, AD 337–425. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press. pp. 487–515. doi: 10.1017/CHOL9780521302005.017. ISBN 9781139054409. Retrieved February 22, 2020.
(1998c). ‘Goths and Huns, c.320–425’, in CAH 13, pp. 487–515.Krakkos ( talk) 14:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Why are you suddenly reviving more zombies, and with once again no acknowledgement of previous discussions? Aren't we promising not to lock this article into circular, confrontational discussion?
firmly convinced that migration played a role in the southern spread of the Wielbark culture and its transformation into the Chernyakhov culture".
dynastic marriages, trading colonies, travelling artisans as well as young men hiring out as mercenaries". We can not just summarize that into the one word "migration" without adding a lot of extra discussion. In other words his real words are consistent with the common spectrum of "Vienna" beliefs since Wenskus that Heather represents a strong version of. We are not writing a full book, so we can not afford to call it a migration and then explain that we do not really mean migration!?
"dynastic marriages, trading colonies, travelling artisans as well as young men hiring out as mercenaries"concerns Gothic connections to Scandinavia. I have never said he was a
"believer in a literal Jordanes migration". On the role of Gothic migration in the expansion and transformation of the Wielbark culture into the Chernyakhov culture, which we are discussing now, he cites Kokowski, Heather and Bierbrauer and does suggest that Gothic migration played an important role. This is not taken from the abstract as you say, but rather from the actual paper (p. 229). I suggest you give it another read. Krakkos ( talk) 15:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A rather fast migration is one possibility but a more slow diffusion, combined with some sort of exchange of people between certain social groups, is another possible interpretation (Kokowski 1999, 31). It was not necessarily masses of people who moved from one area to another. It is likely that certain influential groups formed a core with the strength or attraction to dominate in new areas. Out of a number of different tribes and local groups, a homogeneous whole was created over time. Other groups in new areas were adopted by the expanding Wielbark Culture, people of the Przeworsk Culture and of Dacian, Iranian or Slavic origin. This new compound eventually formed the different Gothic tribes appearing in historical sources from the 3rd and 4th century, and who are archaeologically visible as the Černjachov and Sîntana de Mureș Cultures.Do you understand my concern with the simple unqualified use of the word "migration" to represent something this qualified?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
"For a long time the Wielbark Culture has been identified with the presence of the Goths in Poland... The reason and dynamics behind the expansion of the Wielbark – Cernjachov - Sîntana de Mures Culture have been much discussed. However, it is clear that the expansion of elements of the Wielbark Culture fits well into the historically known Gothic areas of Southeast Europe and there is no reason to doubt that the Goths were a dominant tribal group within the areas of the Cernjachov and Sîntana de Mures Cultures (Bierbrauer 1999, 415 f.). A rather fast migration is one possibility but a more slow diffusion, combined with some sort of exchange of people between certain social groups, is another possible interpretation (Kokowski 1999, 31). It was not necessarily masses of people who moved from one area to another. It is likely that certain influential groups formed a core with the strength or attraction to dominate in new areas. Out of a number of different tribes and local groups, a homogeneous whole was created over time. Other groups in new areas were adopted by the expanding Wielbark Culture, people of the Przeworsk Culture and of Dacian, Iranian or Slavic origin. This new compound eventually formed the different Gothic tribes appearing in historical sources from the 3rd and 4th century, and who are archaeologically visible as the Cernjachov and Sîntana de Mures Cultures. Different methods could have been used to take over a geographical area, ranging from negotiations leading to federations with other tribes to pure force and war. The ancestors of the different Gothic kingdoms probably consisted of a mixture of dominant Gothic groups and subordinate locals (Heather 1998, 86 f.). Even if the core of “real” Goths were relatively small, they had the capacity to hold on to a certain ethnical identity for a long time and in totally new environments." – Kaliff, Anders (2008). "The Goths and Scandinavia". In Biehl, P. F.; Rassamakin, Y. Ya. (eds.). Import and Imitation in Archaeology (PDF). Beier & Beran. pp. 228–229. ISBN 978-3-937517-95-7. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 4, 2020.
"It should be remembered that what is commonly understood by the term Goths during the Roman period and during the early Migration period refers to the history of four archaeological cultures : the Wielbark culture ( Wołągiewicz 1981a ; Jaskanis , Okulicz 1981 ; Bierbrauer 1995 : 53 - 67 ; Kokowski 1988 ; 1995a : 26 - 45 ; 1999a : 17 - 63 ) , the Masłomecz group ( Kokowski 1995b ; 1998 ; 1999b ; 1999a ) , Chernjahov culture ( Baran 1981 ; Bierbrauer 1995 : 105 - 121 ; Magomedov 1987 ; 2001 ; Vinokur 1974 ) and the Sîntana de Mureş culture ( Ioniță 1966 ; 1982 ; Bierbrauer 1995 : 121 - 34 ) . More recently , these cultures have been collectively referred to as “ the cultures of the Gothic circle ”. On the one hand , the term emphasizes the enormous similarity of the material and spiritual cultures of the above mentioned groups , and on the other hand , their historical affinity in the form of common ancestry... Most certain is their common origin from the northern part of the continent ( Bierbrauer 1995 : 52 , 75 - 87 ; Kokowski 1999a : 11 - 29 )." – Kokowski, Andrzej (2007). "The Agriculture of the Goths Between the First and Fifth Centuries AD". In Barnish, Sam J.; Marazzi, Federico (eds.). The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective. The Boydell Press. pp. 222–223. ISBN 9781843830740.
"[In the 4th century] Goths occupied a vast territory encompassing the lands from the Lower Vistula in the north, large parts of eastern Poland and western Belorussia, territories of Ukraine reaching in certain parts beyond the Dnieper River, Bessarabia and large parts of what is now Romania.5 In this territory four Gothic cultures were distinguished: the Wielbark culture, the Chernyakhov culture, Sîntana de Mureş culture and the Masłomęcz group.6 Their origins are linked with gradual movement of Gothic communities to the south-east as well as with the scope and quality of absorbed ‘cultural background’ – that is local communities, often described with the use of other ethnic definitions. The oldest culture among the aforementioned ones is the Wielbark culture. It developed around the time after the birth of Christ and survived until the second half of the 4th century... Since the last quarter of the 1st century a demographic ‘explosion’ has been observed in the area inhabited by this community... In the early Roman period it made the settlement area almost triple in size. It is claimed that newcomers from Scandinavia had their part in the expansion of this culture. There is every indication that they developed mainly the northern part of the C zone distinguished by R. Wołągiewicz in the territory of this culture... The second stage of the expansion of the population of the Wielbark culture took place in times after the end of Marcomannic wars in 180 AD (the end of the 2nd century AD – phase B2/C1–C1a). The population left the provinces marked by Wołągiewicz with letters B and C, but took lands east of the Middle Vistula reaching Podolia and Volhynia... Further expansion in eastern direction to the territories of present-day Ukraine resulted in the emergence of a new cultural phenomenon – the Chernyakhov culture.20 It took place in the times from around 230 AD." – Kokowski, Andrzej (2011). "The Goths in ca. 311 AD". In Kaliff, Anders [in Swedish]; Munkhammar, Lars (eds.). Wulfila 311-2011 (PDF). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. pp. 71–75. ISBN 9789155486648. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 5, 2020.
I have never had any problem at all with archaeological sources for archaeological matters, but don't you agree that there is currently a consensus that we should work on reducing the complexity and size of our footnotes about such things in the opening section of this specific article? And to be clear, I continue to be concerned to make sure we do not use archaeologists as a "back door" for making uncertain things certain in any areas which are not their speciality, such as Jordanes, or the Marcomannic wars. That has been my concern also in the past. Does that not make sense to you? And just a practical issue: These are massive quotations Krakkos, and I'm not sure what they are here for. Is there a chance you could collapse those on this talk page?
The open question was whether you understood why I do not believe that we can describe Kaliff as a firm believer in any simple "migration" either to or from the Vistula region. Can you please respond to that question?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
In the Roman period, the archaeological record suggests, a 'Gothic circle' emerges, with different tribes coalescing in a large group where Goths probably dominated. This area encompassed the Lower Vistula, large swathes of eastern Poland and western Belorussia, parts of the Ukraine and Bessarabia, and much of what later is what is now Romania. This broad complex consisted of four related cultures, those of Wielbark , Masłomęcz, Chernjahov and Sîntana de Mureş.'
I agree with the basic idea, but I think your proposal is very Kokowski-based, and he is on the "lumping" end of the spectrum, and his way of slipping controversial interpretations of history into his texts is not typical or widely agreed with. Let's start with what is less controversial: Černjachov / Sîntana de Mureș Culture is widely identified as a complex which includes the Goths along with other peoples. This can uncontroversially be stated somewhere early. I think that secondly the Wielbark culture can be mentioned when we bring in the Vistula area and the Gutones (however we do that). And thirdly, I think it is also relatively uncontroversial that once we have mentioned both of those that we can mention the proposed links between them. But I believe this should be something more cautious, like the wordings of Halsall and Kaliff. Fourthly, if we can fit a quick reference to scholarly diversity we should mention (perhaps only in footnotes) the strong version of that, as represented by Heather, and the scepticism about all of it, as represented by people like Kulikowski and Goffart. Lot's of material above, in this section. Thanks Nishidani.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 18:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
"R. Wolagiewicz qui a étudié la chronologie des rois gothiques fournie par Jordanés estime a notre avis â juste titre que Berig, le roi qui conduit les Goths sur la côte sud de Baltique, aurait vécu a cette epoque... Le point de vue de R. Wolagiewiz implique cependant un certain nombre remarques. Tout d'abord pourquoi les Scandinaves installés en Poméranie orientale semblent-ils si peu nombreux? La premiére migration des Goths ne serait-elle donc pas celle d'un people ou d'une grande tribu mais celle d'un groupe restreint? C'est ce que semble également laisser entendre Jordanés, puisqui'il rapporte que les Goths sont venus de Scandinavie sur "trois navires seulement". Comment justifier alors que cet auteur ait attaché suffisament d'importance á cette migration pour la mentionner á plusieurs reprises? Le rôle politique joué par les nouveaux venus et la présence parmi eux de leur roi Berig sont sans doute â cet égard signicatifs. L'historien polonais J. Kolendo a interprété l'historie de l'origine des Goths comme celle de la dynastie gothique royale des Amales qui régnera jusqu'au VIe s. et dont Berig fut le premier roi. Compte tenu des données archéologiques que nous venons d'évoquer, cette hypothése nous paraît vraisemblable. On peut supposer que le roi des Goths et son entourage immédiat, une fois débarqués sur le continent, ont placé sous leur domination les tribus locales. On connaît des cas similaries dans l'historie des peuples anciens qui tenaient en haute estime les rois descendant de familles illustres, souvent sacralisées... seule la dynastie royale et son entourage pourraient avoir une origine scandinave. Ajoutons que les paralléles scandinaves des sites de Poméranie sont, nous l'avons vu, trés dispersés: on les troube aussi bien au sud de la Norvége qu'en Suéde ou que sur les îles de la Baltique. Cette constation pourrait montrer l'oriine hétérogéne des migrants.." – Kazanski, Michel (1991). Les Goths [The Goths] (in French). Éditions Errance. pp. 15–18. ISBN 2877720624.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|nopp=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
The first incursion of the Roman Empire that can be attributed to Goths is the sack of Histria in 238
Histria was sacked, according to the Historia Augusta, during the first major attack, launched by the Carpi and Goths (‘Scythians’) in AD 238 (HA vit. Max. et Balb. 16, 3). ..That the city was burnt down is probable but the date provided by the Historia Augusta may well be too early. A monumental building inscription, dated to AD 240 records the construction of a macellum (ISM I 168 (Andrew Poulter, 'Why Did Most Cities in Moesia and Thrace Survive during the 3rd-Century ‘Crisis’?,' in Fritz Mitthof, Gunther Martin, Jana Grusková (eds.), Empire in Crisis: Gothic Invasions and Roman Historiography, Holzhausen, Wien 2020 pp.369-388, p.374)
The first incursion of the Roman Empire attributable to Goths is the capture of Histria, reportedly in 238.
See the new Steinacher article (2018) pp. 410-11 for something more like what we find in other newer summaries such as also Halsall, Heather, etc. I am not saying it is intrinsically different from Kokowski but I am wondering why we would go into more detail about archaeology than academics when they write about the Goths.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, it seems the link to the English version of Wolfram's History of the Goths has been placed in the entry for the German version.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 06:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: I see we now have two editions for Wolfram, 1988 and 1990? Should we unite these? (Not sure if they have different pagination, but I thought not.) Ideally this item should also mention the original publication date as it is a text with many different editions? -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: I think your newest lead draft on my drafting page [13] goes in a good direction. You've done well in compressing this. But can you consider whether these bits can be improved upon...
Thanks.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 21:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Having seen that editors are discussing the four cultures, I'm giving notice here that I'm reading on Gothic material culture and intend to make some bold edits on the subject. It will be a while, since this will be extracurricular work done for pleasure, probably in manic bursts under the influence of favored intoxicants, as is all my writing.;-) Any comments or advice are welcome. Carlstak ( talk) 02:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
A genetic study on early Slavs in Poland is about to be published. The study will possibly include Gothic samples, and some raw data has already been released. Heat maps of the data have been made by an artist. The heat maps can be found at the Reddit post "A potential clue in regards to Gothic origins?". We can't cite it of course, but it's an informative read. The post contains quite a lot of content copied from Wikipedia, revealing how content added here is frequently mirrored elsewhere. Interesting times. Krakkos ( talk) 18:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Perhaps useful [1] . Also available on other sites including Academia.
I understand this to be a "Vienna school" coordinated work. (It seems Austria is into open access lately, so download before that changes!) This includes a new 2018 article by Steinacher which is more specifically about Gothic origins than his 2017 book which we've discussed in the past. Here are some relevant to our recent discussion of whether it is right to simply equate Goths and Gutones (and Gauts). I believe, as in previous articles he's written, he gives one of the clearest statements of a sort of up-dated "Vienna" thinking. He argues (less sceptically than the Toronto folks for example) that we can really say that the name was carried between these peoples, indicating it must have had some prestige, but that we can't say much more than that. His vision takes it as a starting point that instead of equating them, there is a continuous redefinition of Gothic or Gutonic "Identity". I place "Identity" in quotes to alert to the fact that in the more scholarly debates on these things, this is a controversial technical term right now. See for example this article text by Guy Halsall which reflects on the disagreements between some of the big names. These are from Steinacher's article:
In my opinion, such complicated ideas about changing identity aren't for our lead, to say the least, but they make it clear enough that we can not simply identify Goths and Gutones. (This is of course also something I've observed based on older sources. This article is not necessarily saying anything new in this respect, but it is an interesting one.) We can compare to his 2017 book:
My thoughts on some comparisons to the source favoured in our current article, Peter Heather. The idea that there needed to be a movement of a large number of people between the Vistula and the Black Sea (though not a simple migration) is of course also a popular one, because Heather has been arguing it for decades. His arguments used to be archaeological, but that evidence no longer seems to have much support (and has been criticized by historians with a more archaeological reputation, like Halsall and Curta). In his more recent mass market "Empires and Barbarians" he now argues that the Germanic language of the Goths proves significant movement of people because it means mothers had to have taught their children. At the same time he seems not to notice that he himself writes in the same passages, that these Germanic speakers reconquering areas where Germanic had probably been spoken for centuries by the Bastarnae. Furthermore he argues that the Goths' movement was linked to that of the Vandals, who were in the Carpathians already in the century before the Goths appeared. I have not found any scholarly acceptance or criticism of this "mothers" argument yet.
To be clear though: Heather thinks there is no evidence of such a movement from Scandinavia though, and his concept of a significant movement of people also explicitly means many small groups over a long period, not a simple migration.
Comparison to Goffart (who seems to fascinate people). Goffart is closer to the popular Vienna thinking that some might think. See Barbarian Tides p. 112 which does not specifically mention Gutones but shows acceptance of the idea that some peoples later found under Attila may have moved from the Polish region, and "do not lack pasts". However they "did not just happen to "move" from one settlement to the other in a mindless Brownian motion. How they transposed themselves is unknowable". (Reminiscent of the comments by Curta about Heather's billiard table model of migrations.) In short Goffart is a sceptic and points to the weakness of the evidence. I think he has been taken very seriously in this regard, including by Heather and the Vienna school.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The Černjachov culture is a mixture of all sorts of influences but most come from the existing cultures in the region. It is has been argued that evolves directly from the Wielbark culture of the lower Vistula and that the spread from Wielbark to Černjachov is archaeological proof of the Goths' migration from the shores of the Baltic. This notion should not be entirely rejected but it needs considerable modification. The source for the Gothic migration from Scandinavia is Jordanes' Getica, which is deeply problematic and certainly cannot be used as evidence for migration. The Wielbark culture begins earlier than the Černjachov but its later phases cover the same period as the latter. There is thus no chronological development from one to the other. Furthermore, although the Wielbark culture does spread up the Vistula during its history, its geographical overlap with the Černjachov culture is minimal. These facts make it improbable that the Černjachov culture was descended from the Wielbark. [...discussion of archaeological evidence...] This evidence will not support the idea of a substantial migration.
However, the Goths clearly spoke an east Germanic language, preserved in their apostle Wulfila's translation of the Gospels and other texts. Their personal names are Germanic and runes are known from the Černjachov area. This probably implies some migration into the region (although there were people regarded as 'Germanic' in the region before), probably during the third century, when imperial sources first attest the Goths north of the Danube. Where these newcomers came from cannot now be ascertained but the territory of the Wielbark culture is probable, though not on the basis of the archaeological evidence, as just discussed.[emphasis added] Halsall proposes that there was a cultural corridor involving the amber trade, and (p.134)
It seems most likely that in the confusion of the third century and, specifically, the Roman abandonment of the Carpathian basin a Germanic-speaking military elite was able to spread its power down the amber routes into the lands of the Sarmatians, Dacians, and Carpi and found a number of kingdoms, some grouped into a powerful confederacy.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
"The complex nature of society and politics north of the Danube does not directly concern this volume, which concentrates on western Europe, and excellent surveys of fourth-century Gothic society are readily available in English.73... 73 In English, the best are by Peter Heather, especially, and John Matthews: Heather (1998c), pp. 488–96; Heather and Matthews (1991), chs. 3–4; Matthews (1989), pp. 318–32. See also Kazanski (1991), pp. 29–59. The following account is based heavily upon these but with some differences of interpretation."See also: Thompson, E. A. (1961); Wolfram (1988), pp. 89–116; (1997), pp. 69–89." – Halsall, Guy (2007). Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376–568. Cambridge University Press. pp. 131–132. ISBN 9781107393325.
"Metalwork, personal ornaments and, above all,the distinctive habit of mixing inhumation and cremation within single cemeteries indicate that, in some ways, the Cernjachov culture was a direct descendant of the Germanic Wielbark culture which had dominated central and eastern Poland in the first two centuries A.D. On the other hand, wheel-turned Cernjachov pottery, in both technique and range of forms, descends directly from pottery in use around the Carpathians in the early centuries A.D., and is not dissimilar to Roman provincial wares... This throws up a crucially important but difficult question. To what extent did distinctions between immigrant Germanic and local non-Germanic populations, and between the different groups of Germanic immigrants, survive through the fourth century? Did the immigrant Goths absorb a large proportion of the indigenous population, or were social and political boundaries maintained? There has been a tendency recently to stress the multi-ethnic basis of the realms created by the Goths around the Black Sea: a necessary corrective to the outdated idea that a distinctive material culture must be associated with a single people.5 At the same time, the establishment of Gothic and other Germanic groups north of the Black Sea involved considerable competition with powers indigenous to the region. The immigrants did not create multi-ethnic confederations by negotiation, but intruded themselves by force, and it is quite clear that Dacian Carpi and nomadic Sarmatians, amongst others, were the losers inthe process. The original pattern of units created, therefore, was probably a mixture of dominant Germanic, especially Gothic, groups and sub-ordinate locals. Consonant with this is the fact that, viewed from across the frontier, Germanic immigrants were the obviously dominant force in this region; fourth-century Graeco-Roman sources mention only Goths north of the Danube. Likewise, the Gothic language of Ulfilas' Bible is Germanic. A mixed population, then, but not an equal one, and this lack of equality is likely to have hindered absorption, since dominant groups had every interest in maintaining their superiority." – Heather, Peter (1997). "Goths and Huns, c. 320–425". In Cameron, Averil; Garnsey, Peter (eds.). The Late Empire, AD 337–425. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press. pp. 487–515. doi: 10.1017/CHOL9780521302005.017. ISBN 9781139054409. Retrieved February 22, 2020.
(1998c). ‘Goths and Huns, c.320–425’, in CAH 13, pp. 487–515.Krakkos ( talk) 14:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Why are you suddenly reviving more zombies, and with once again no acknowledgement of previous discussions? Aren't we promising not to lock this article into circular, confrontational discussion?
firmly convinced that migration played a role in the southern spread of the Wielbark culture and its transformation into the Chernyakhov culture".
dynastic marriages, trading colonies, travelling artisans as well as young men hiring out as mercenaries". We can not just summarize that into the one word "migration" without adding a lot of extra discussion. In other words his real words are consistent with the common spectrum of "Vienna" beliefs since Wenskus that Heather represents a strong version of. We are not writing a full book, so we can not afford to call it a migration and then explain that we do not really mean migration!?
"dynastic marriages, trading colonies, travelling artisans as well as young men hiring out as mercenaries"concerns Gothic connections to Scandinavia. I have never said he was a
"believer in a literal Jordanes migration". On the role of Gothic migration in the expansion and transformation of the Wielbark culture into the Chernyakhov culture, which we are discussing now, he cites Kokowski, Heather and Bierbrauer and does suggest that Gothic migration played an important role. This is not taken from the abstract as you say, but rather from the actual paper (p. 229). I suggest you give it another read. Krakkos ( talk) 15:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A rather fast migration is one possibility but a more slow diffusion, combined with some sort of exchange of people between certain social groups, is another possible interpretation (Kokowski 1999, 31). It was not necessarily masses of people who moved from one area to another. It is likely that certain influential groups formed a core with the strength or attraction to dominate in new areas. Out of a number of different tribes and local groups, a homogeneous whole was created over time. Other groups in new areas were adopted by the expanding Wielbark Culture, people of the Przeworsk Culture and of Dacian, Iranian or Slavic origin. This new compound eventually formed the different Gothic tribes appearing in historical sources from the 3rd and 4th century, and who are archaeologically visible as the Černjachov and Sîntana de Mureș Cultures.Do you understand my concern with the simple unqualified use of the word "migration" to represent something this qualified?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
"For a long time the Wielbark Culture has been identified with the presence of the Goths in Poland... The reason and dynamics behind the expansion of the Wielbark – Cernjachov - Sîntana de Mures Culture have been much discussed. However, it is clear that the expansion of elements of the Wielbark Culture fits well into the historically known Gothic areas of Southeast Europe and there is no reason to doubt that the Goths were a dominant tribal group within the areas of the Cernjachov and Sîntana de Mures Cultures (Bierbrauer 1999, 415 f.). A rather fast migration is one possibility but a more slow diffusion, combined with some sort of exchange of people between certain social groups, is another possible interpretation (Kokowski 1999, 31). It was not necessarily masses of people who moved from one area to another. It is likely that certain influential groups formed a core with the strength or attraction to dominate in new areas. Out of a number of different tribes and local groups, a homogeneous whole was created over time. Other groups in new areas were adopted by the expanding Wielbark Culture, people of the Przeworsk Culture and of Dacian, Iranian or Slavic origin. This new compound eventually formed the different Gothic tribes appearing in historical sources from the 3rd and 4th century, and who are archaeologically visible as the Cernjachov and Sîntana de Mures Cultures. Different methods could have been used to take over a geographical area, ranging from negotiations leading to federations with other tribes to pure force and war. The ancestors of the different Gothic kingdoms probably consisted of a mixture of dominant Gothic groups and subordinate locals (Heather 1998, 86 f.). Even if the core of “real” Goths were relatively small, they had the capacity to hold on to a certain ethnical identity for a long time and in totally new environments." – Kaliff, Anders (2008). "The Goths and Scandinavia". In Biehl, P. F.; Rassamakin, Y. Ya. (eds.). Import and Imitation in Archaeology (PDF). Beier & Beran. pp. 228–229. ISBN 978-3-937517-95-7. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 4, 2020.
"It should be remembered that what is commonly understood by the term Goths during the Roman period and during the early Migration period refers to the history of four archaeological cultures : the Wielbark culture ( Wołągiewicz 1981a ; Jaskanis , Okulicz 1981 ; Bierbrauer 1995 : 53 - 67 ; Kokowski 1988 ; 1995a : 26 - 45 ; 1999a : 17 - 63 ) , the Masłomecz group ( Kokowski 1995b ; 1998 ; 1999b ; 1999a ) , Chernjahov culture ( Baran 1981 ; Bierbrauer 1995 : 105 - 121 ; Magomedov 1987 ; 2001 ; Vinokur 1974 ) and the Sîntana de Mureş culture ( Ioniță 1966 ; 1982 ; Bierbrauer 1995 : 121 - 34 ) . More recently , these cultures have been collectively referred to as “ the cultures of the Gothic circle ”. On the one hand , the term emphasizes the enormous similarity of the material and spiritual cultures of the above mentioned groups , and on the other hand , their historical affinity in the form of common ancestry... Most certain is their common origin from the northern part of the continent ( Bierbrauer 1995 : 52 , 75 - 87 ; Kokowski 1999a : 11 - 29 )." – Kokowski, Andrzej (2007). "The Agriculture of the Goths Between the First and Fifth Centuries AD". In Barnish, Sam J.; Marazzi, Federico (eds.). The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective. The Boydell Press. pp. 222–223. ISBN 9781843830740.
"[In the 4th century] Goths occupied a vast territory encompassing the lands from the Lower Vistula in the north, large parts of eastern Poland and western Belorussia, territories of Ukraine reaching in certain parts beyond the Dnieper River, Bessarabia and large parts of what is now Romania.5 In this territory four Gothic cultures were distinguished: the Wielbark culture, the Chernyakhov culture, Sîntana de Mureş culture and the Masłomęcz group.6 Their origins are linked with gradual movement of Gothic communities to the south-east as well as with the scope and quality of absorbed ‘cultural background’ – that is local communities, often described with the use of other ethnic definitions. The oldest culture among the aforementioned ones is the Wielbark culture. It developed around the time after the birth of Christ and survived until the second half of the 4th century... Since the last quarter of the 1st century a demographic ‘explosion’ has been observed in the area inhabited by this community... In the early Roman period it made the settlement area almost triple in size. It is claimed that newcomers from Scandinavia had their part in the expansion of this culture. There is every indication that they developed mainly the northern part of the C zone distinguished by R. Wołągiewicz in the territory of this culture... The second stage of the expansion of the population of the Wielbark culture took place in times after the end of Marcomannic wars in 180 AD (the end of the 2nd century AD – phase B2/C1–C1a). The population left the provinces marked by Wołągiewicz with letters B and C, but took lands east of the Middle Vistula reaching Podolia and Volhynia... Further expansion in eastern direction to the territories of present-day Ukraine resulted in the emergence of a new cultural phenomenon – the Chernyakhov culture.20 It took place in the times from around 230 AD." – Kokowski, Andrzej (2011). "The Goths in ca. 311 AD". In Kaliff, Anders [in Swedish]; Munkhammar, Lars (eds.). Wulfila 311-2011 (PDF). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. pp. 71–75. ISBN 9789155486648. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 5, 2020.
I have never had any problem at all with archaeological sources for archaeological matters, but don't you agree that there is currently a consensus that we should work on reducing the complexity and size of our footnotes about such things in the opening section of this specific article? And to be clear, I continue to be concerned to make sure we do not use archaeologists as a "back door" for making uncertain things certain in any areas which are not their speciality, such as Jordanes, or the Marcomannic wars. That has been my concern also in the past. Does that not make sense to you? And just a practical issue: These are massive quotations Krakkos, and I'm not sure what they are here for. Is there a chance you could collapse those on this talk page?
The open question was whether you understood why I do not believe that we can describe Kaliff as a firm believer in any simple "migration" either to or from the Vistula region. Can you please respond to that question?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
In the Roman period, the archaeological record suggests, a 'Gothic circle' emerges, with different tribes coalescing in a large group where Goths probably dominated. This area encompassed the Lower Vistula, large swathes of eastern Poland and western Belorussia, parts of the Ukraine and Bessarabia, and much of what later is what is now Romania. This broad complex consisted of four related cultures, those of Wielbark , Masłomęcz, Chernjahov and Sîntana de Mureş.'
I agree with the basic idea, but I think your proposal is very Kokowski-based, and he is on the "lumping" end of the spectrum, and his way of slipping controversial interpretations of history into his texts is not typical or widely agreed with. Let's start with what is less controversial: Černjachov / Sîntana de Mureș Culture is widely identified as a complex which includes the Goths along with other peoples. This can uncontroversially be stated somewhere early. I think that secondly the Wielbark culture can be mentioned when we bring in the Vistula area and the Gutones (however we do that). And thirdly, I think it is also relatively uncontroversial that once we have mentioned both of those that we can mention the proposed links between them. But I believe this should be something more cautious, like the wordings of Halsall and Kaliff. Fourthly, if we can fit a quick reference to scholarly diversity we should mention (perhaps only in footnotes) the strong version of that, as represented by Heather, and the scepticism about all of it, as represented by people like Kulikowski and Goffart. Lot's of material above, in this section. Thanks Nishidani.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 18:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
"R. Wolagiewicz qui a étudié la chronologie des rois gothiques fournie par Jordanés estime a notre avis â juste titre que Berig, le roi qui conduit les Goths sur la côte sud de Baltique, aurait vécu a cette epoque... Le point de vue de R. Wolagiewiz implique cependant un certain nombre remarques. Tout d'abord pourquoi les Scandinaves installés en Poméranie orientale semblent-ils si peu nombreux? La premiére migration des Goths ne serait-elle donc pas celle d'un people ou d'une grande tribu mais celle d'un groupe restreint? C'est ce que semble également laisser entendre Jordanés, puisqui'il rapporte que les Goths sont venus de Scandinavie sur "trois navires seulement". Comment justifier alors que cet auteur ait attaché suffisament d'importance á cette migration pour la mentionner á plusieurs reprises? Le rôle politique joué par les nouveaux venus et la présence parmi eux de leur roi Berig sont sans doute â cet égard signicatifs. L'historien polonais J. Kolendo a interprété l'historie de l'origine des Goths comme celle de la dynastie gothique royale des Amales qui régnera jusqu'au VIe s. et dont Berig fut le premier roi. Compte tenu des données archéologiques que nous venons d'évoquer, cette hypothése nous paraît vraisemblable. On peut supposer que le roi des Goths et son entourage immédiat, une fois débarqués sur le continent, ont placé sous leur domination les tribus locales. On connaît des cas similaries dans l'historie des peuples anciens qui tenaient en haute estime les rois descendant de familles illustres, souvent sacralisées... seule la dynastie royale et son entourage pourraient avoir une origine scandinave. Ajoutons que les paralléles scandinaves des sites de Poméranie sont, nous l'avons vu, trés dispersés: on les troube aussi bien au sud de la Norvége qu'en Suéde ou que sur les îles de la Baltique. Cette constation pourrait montrer l'oriine hétérogéne des migrants.." – Kazanski, Michel (1991). Les Goths [The Goths] (in French). Éditions Errance. pp. 15–18. ISBN 2877720624.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|nopp=
( help); Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
The first incursion of the Roman Empire that can be attributed to Goths is the sack of Histria in 238
Histria was sacked, according to the Historia Augusta, during the first major attack, launched by the Carpi and Goths (‘Scythians’) in AD 238 (HA vit. Max. et Balb. 16, 3). ..That the city was burnt down is probable but the date provided by the Historia Augusta may well be too early. A monumental building inscription, dated to AD 240 records the construction of a macellum (ISM I 168 (Andrew Poulter, 'Why Did Most Cities in Moesia and Thrace Survive during the 3rd-Century ‘Crisis’?,' in Fritz Mitthof, Gunther Martin, Jana Grusková (eds.), Empire in Crisis: Gothic Invasions and Roman Historiography, Holzhausen, Wien 2020 pp.369-388, p.374)
The first incursion of the Roman Empire attributable to Goths is the capture of Histria, reportedly in 238.
See the new Steinacher article (2018) pp. 410-11 for something more like what we find in other newer summaries such as also Halsall, Heather, etc. I am not saying it is intrinsically different from Kokowski but I am wondering why we would go into more detail about archaeology than academics when they write about the Goths.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, it seems the link to the English version of Wolfram's History of the Goths has been placed in the entry for the German version.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 06:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: I see we now have two editions for Wolfram, 1988 and 1990? Should we unite these? (Not sure if they have different pagination, but I thought not.) Ideally this item should also mention the original publication date as it is a text with many different editions? -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: I think your newest lead draft on my drafting page [13] goes in a good direction. You've done well in compressing this. But can you consider whether these bits can be improved upon...
Thanks.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 21:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Having seen that editors are discussing the four cultures, I'm giving notice here that I'm reading on Gothic material culture and intend to make some bold edits on the subject. It will be a while, since this will be extracurricular work done for pleasure, probably in manic bursts under the influence of favored intoxicants, as is all my writing.;-) Any comments or advice are welcome. Carlstak ( talk) 02:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
A genetic study on early Slavs in Poland is about to be published. The study will possibly include Gothic samples, and some raw data has already been released. Heat maps of the data have been made by an artist. The heat maps can be found at the Reddit post "A potential clue in regards to Gothic origins?". We can't cite it of course, but it's an informative read. The post contains quite a lot of content copied from Wikipedia, revealing how content added here is frequently mirrored elsewhere. Interesting times. Krakkos ( talk) 18:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)