The Goths: Unraveling the Myth of the Getae

[swabian]

No, my point was, that the Goths cavalry was result of their steppe contacts:



Everything else was distraction because some people saw strong Frankish and Alamann cavalry thundering over Europe Dark Ages battlefields. I still cannot see them in any of the major battles recorded, but may be I am just missing the right one?

Oh, we're already in the strawman-phase? If you saw me saying something like this:

Celts cavalry wielding the kontos in BC Gaul?

Then you may be missing and/or mistaking a lot of things in general

I don't think so. Most of the langobard tombs in Pannonia-Noricum-Moravia contained spatha, shields and lances.

As well as typical gear for horsemen, like spurs and, most tellingly, skeletons of horses that were burried with them

Also, remember that those graves are exclusively graves of the aristocracy.

Source: Istvan Bona: hunok, gepidák, langobardok, Szeged 1993.)

In German that would be "István Bóna, Der Anbruch des Mittelalters - Gepiden und Langobarden im Karpatenbecken", right? I have that one too and i can put on top of that: "Die Langobarden - Das Ende Der Völkerwanderung" (a big fat catalogue of an exhibition about the Langobards in Bonn, which i have visited back then btw.) and "Wilfried Menghin, Die Langobarden - Geschichte und Archäologie" (as well as a couple of non-archeologic books including a translation of Historia Langobardorum).

[Edelward]

Talking about displacements.
Northumbrian monks called Scandinavian Peninsulae for Scythia.
Though amongst many peoples in early medieval Central Sweden in 6th century AC some warrior aristocrats were known because they were great riders,they even used stirrups . Since Germanics,Northern at least ,overall despited riding it was something very foreign. Of course, it is little to speculate upon ,but would we give trust to that fact we would have to agree that Eastern Germanic,like Goths, in Eastern Europe and Ukraine had backward compability to Scandinavia and could transcendent the technics they had learnt there back into Nordic countries.
Like the grave from 5th century of Arian priest, found on island Gotland .

[Odovacar]

As well as typical gear for horsemen, like spurs and, most tellingly, skeletons of horses that were burried with them

When I will have time I check the book about that.

Also, remember that those graves are exclusively graves of the aristocracy.

Of course. The archeologists make a difference between the various classes. Aristocrats usually fight on horseback.

In German that would be "István Bóna, Der Anbruch des Mittelalters - Gepiden und Langobarden im Karpatenbecken", right? I have that one too and i can put on top of that: "Die Langobarden - Das Ende Der Völkerwanderung" (a big fat catalogue of an exhibition about the Langobards in Bonn, which i have visited back then btw.) and "Wilfried Menghin, Die Langobarden - Geschichte und Archäologie" (as well as a couple of non-archeologic books including a translation of Historia Langobardorum).

No, that's another book. That's an expensive german edition of his another hungarian book " a középkor hajnala" ("The morning of middle ages")
Still you are on the right track, Bona is the main authority on that field in Hungary. The book I quoted I am afraid wasn't poublished in german.

[konny]

Oh, we're already in the strawman-phase? If you saw me saying something like this:

Still no masses Frankish and Alamann cavalry on Dark Ages battlefields around.
So what, you have the fatter books (realy read them? I mean either Odovacar is right or you; both of you cannot claim complete opposite stuff from the same book).

[swabian]

Still no masses Frankish and Alamann cavalry on Dark Ages battlefields around.

I don't know what you're try to say by that or to what you're trying to refer.

So what, you have the fatter books (realy read them? I mean either Odovacar is right or you; both of you cannot claim complete opposite stuff from the same book).

LOL, do you read anything here at all? Odo just said that it is not the same book. And yes, i actually read that stuff. Btw he already admitted that he was wrong, most Langobardic warrior graves are the graves of horsemen, which is not surprising since only members of the upper class were burried like that.

@Odo: Those findings you mentioned are from the 60's and 70's, i think there were more discoveries in the meantime. Bóna is also cited a lot by Menghin, so i don't think i miss the spectrum of findings you think of.

[Romano-Dacis]

The Goths certainly borrowed nothing from french and you have to be careful with self-investigated etymology LOL.

Those words which are supposedly of Latin origin simply have a common Proto-Indoeuropean root, that doesn't mean that it's a loanword from Latin or vice versa (Wulfila-Gothic has not much loanwords at all).

And "Jah" for instance is directly related to German or Swedish "ja" (and it's perfectly Germanic), the meaning changed only slightly.

I don't think you understand my post.
I am saying Romanian has loanwords from French, and Gothic does indeed have loanwords from Latin. Almost every langauge has loanwords from Latin. The meaning from "and" and "yes" are actually quite different. Just because they sound the same doesn't mean they are related.

[swabian]

I don't think you understand my post.
I am saying Romanian has loanwords from French,

If you referd to Romanian (and not to Latin influence on Gothic language), then i got that wrong, sorry.

and Gothic does indeed have loanwords from Latin. Almost every langauge has loanwords from Latin.

I didn't contradict that.

The meaning from "and" and "yes" are actually quite different. Just because they sound the same doesn't mean they are related.

Nevertheless, the "Gothic "jah" and the contemporaneous cognates (in German and Swedish for instance) are indeed related by Germanic and Proto-Indo-European relationship.
For a native German speaker, it's relatively easy to rephrase this (last sentence of the Gothic Lords Prayer), so that the "jah" is indirectly translatable (and it's even possible to understand whole sentences in Gothic with a bit language talent).

[Visarion]

This is on what Getwulf's hypohesis relies on: Haplogrop I



Responsible for the presence of haplogroup I in all those areas can be explained by the fact that many migratory people were of German origin: Goths, Vandals, Lombards, Burgundians, Suevians, Saxons, Angles, Normans etc.

or Getwulf could be right regarding his statement that Thracians and Germans were related. Germans indeed claimed in ancient times that they were Thracians or Cimmerians - Cimbri. It is clear that the Thraco-Cimmerians had a great influence over Germans and Celts. Thraco-Cimmerians migrated from the Northern shores of the Black Sea. The Thracian branch migrated in the Balkans, Anatolia and in Central and Northern Europe. The Cimmerian one migrated in Caucasus, Anatolia and Volga river basin. (Volga basin is considered the birthplace of the Sarmatians and Sarmatians are considered the descendents of the Cimmerian people)

The free Dacians (Carpians) could be responsible for the dark purple from North East Romania, Republic of Moldova and Southeastern Ukraine, the Thraco-Illyrians for the Dark purple in Southwestern Balkan Peninsula and Cimbri for the dark purple in Jutland and Scandinavia. And for Sardinia you may ask? Well there are a lot of speculations in this matter... There are two explanations for Sardinia: one is that Sherden, Shekelesh and Teresh Sea People came from Sardis, Lydia in 2000 BC and populated Sardinia, Sicily and Tuscany (Etruria) after escaping the Trojan war and the other is Normans that settled in Sicily and attacked and occupied Sardinia. An interesting thing though is that Sardinians have an I2 haplogroup together with people from Central and Southeast Europe while people from Norhern Europe have an I1 haplogroup.

Thracians inhabited parts of the ancient provinces: Thrace, Moesia, Macedonia, Dacia, Scythia Minor, Sarmatia, Bithynia, Mysia, Pannonia, and other regions on the Balkans and Anatolia. This area extends over most of the Balkans region, and the Getae north of the Danube as far as beyond the Bug. The Thracians that reached territories inhabited by Germans and Celts mixed with the local population and have been assimilated.

Also see my Thraco-Cimmerian thesis here



Thraco-Cimmerian finds.

What do you think?

Thraco-Cimmerians gave birth to the Thracians and to the Sarmatians.
The theory that Thraco-Cimmerians lived on the Norhern shores of the Black Sea and split ways,Thracians migrating west and Cimmerians east is in fact not mine it has been written by the great hystorian Herodotus. As you can see haplogroup R1A proves that Thraco-Cimmerians merged with Germans thru the Thracian Branch. Also the Scythians that migrated in areas inhabited by Germans and Celts and much later the Sarmatians have been assimilated by Centum speaking people: Germans and Celts.
I think that this a better representation of the Thraco-Cimmerians and of the people that spoke a Satem language:



Also see this map of haplogroups! R1A (purple) - Satem people R1B (Red) Centum People.

Thraco-Cimmerians, Scythians and Sarmatians never reached Western Europe! R1A has been carried to the British Isles by German Migratory people - Saxons, Angles and Jutes.





The relation between Thracians and Germans can't be denied! It exists!

Haplogroup I has been brought by Thraco-Cimmerians from the North shores of the Black Sea and the steppes of Ukraine to the area of modern Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and Romania or Haplogroup I was born after the Satem speaking hunter-gatherers Thraco-Cimmerians merged with the local Pelasians - The Danubian culture, the first agrarian society of Central and Eastern Europe. Some Thraco-Cimmerians migrated further in Central and Northern Europe and brought the I haplogroup in that area.

This doesn't mean though that Dacians and Goths were the same people! Some Thraco-Cimmerians that came from the steppes of Eastern Europe settled in Dacia, Thrace and Anatolia while others continued their migration in Central Europe where they met Celts and in Northern Europe were they met Germans and merged with them taking their language and culture. Celts from Central Europe have been assimilated by Germans, Thracians and Sarmatians.

See R1B distribution (haplogroup of the Centum people)



Thraco-Cimmerians migrated in Cimbri teritory and merged with them. This is proved by testing mithocondrial DNA. Back then Cimbri were Celts and lived near the Alps. Only later they merged with the Germans from the north and took the Etruscan-based runic writing system with them. They are responsible for the Etruscan scripts in Northern Europe. The Germanic Cimbri merged with Scythians and Sarmatians afterwards.

[swabian]

I think that haplotype I (rather I1a i guess) can't be seen as a specifically Germanic 'gene' (there is no such a thing as a genetical definition of 'Germanic' at all) and that the spread of culture and language (which is what it's all about) only correlates moderately with the spread of genes. BTW i have seen very different maps of the spread of haplotyp I1a.

[Romano-Dacis]

Fair enough then Swabian, I just wanted to clarify that.

Anyway, I am done in this thread; it's been amusing but a better description is "tragic."
Enjoy yourselves.

[swabian]

but a better description is "tragic."

Agreed

[swabian]

The relation between Thracians and Germans can't be denied! It exists!

This relation is simply explained by the construct of originally Indo-European peoples. BTW those maps depicting the spread of genetical markers are definitely pre-historic. I think the earliest times they refer to are the (possibly) Indo-European migrations from about 2200-3000 BC, aren't they (exceptions may be the spread of I1a from Scandinavia to England and northern Germany)?

[Visarion]

I am reffering to that period! Indo-European migration! I am not Implying that Dacians and Goths were the same people. You can see that in my final conclusion.

[swabian]

But i think that would refer to times regarding which cultural definitions such as "Thracian", "Dacian" or "Germanic" (or any other historical lingual/ethnic group) simply do not play any role whatsoever.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I don't think you can equate a single gene with any specific nation or nations today.

[Visarion]

Haplogroup I emerged when members of the Satem migrated in Centum territories and were assimilated. It is possible that it was born when the Thraco-Cimmerians hunter Gatherers met the Danubian agrarians and merged with them. People of the Danubian culture were assimilated by the Satem speaking group. R1b was born when Centum met the local Iberians and Aquitanians and R1a when Satem met Caucasians. Danubians and Iberians were related. Both migrated from Mesopotamia and had J2 haplogroup. They were Hamitians.

[Getwulf]

This relation is simply explained by the construct of originally Indo-European peoples. BTW those maps depicting the spread of genetical markers are definitely pre-historic. I think the earliest times they refer to are the (possibly) Indo-European migrations from about 2200-3000 BC, aren't they (exceptions may be the spread of I1a from Scandinavia to England and northern Germany)?

I'm sorry but that is completely wrong. Haplogroup I is not an Indo-European Haplogroup. It is an "European" only Haplogroup. In fact researchers have had a lot of problems trying to link it to branches further in the past on the human genome.

@ Visarion

"Haplogroup I emerged when members of the Satem migrated in Centum territories and were assimilated. It is possible that it was born when the Thraco-Cimmerians hunter Gatherers met the Danubian agrarians and merged with them. People of the Danubian culture were assimilated by the Satem speaking group. R1b was born when Centum met the local Iberians and Aquitanians and R1a when Satem met Caucasians. Danubians and Iberians were related. Both migrated from Mesopotamia and had J2 haplogroup. They were Hamitians."

Haplogroup I emerged some 22000 years ago. There is absolutely no basis to state that members of Satem migrated in Centum speaking territories.

"Danubians and Iberians were related. Both migrated from Mesopotamia and had J2 haplogroup. They were Hamitians."

It is rather obvious by this statement that they were not related. Now Haplogroup IJ which supposedly gave birth to I and J is only hypothetical and has never been observed in nature. As I stated before please stop constructing large families that have no basis.

"or Getwulf could be right regarding his statement that Thracians and Germans were related."

Actually I never stated that Thracians and Germans are related. Also I never stated that the "Getae" were anything other than Goths. I consider that there are 2 big mistakes in history surrounding this issue.

1. That the Getae have been wrongly classified as "Thracians", despite the fact that the majority of their culture contradicts this notion.

2. That the Goths are considered to have migrated from Scandinavia despite the fact that there is no evidence for a Gothic culture at the time of their supposed migration as given by Jordanes. That is sometime between 1500 BC and 2500 BC. More importantly there is no solid Scandinavian proof of a migration during the "consensus period" between 300 BC and 300 AD.

[swabian]

I'm really not sure about this genetics stuff (and i really don't care much) and i already mentioned that i think I1a was much rather spread about during historical times from Sacandinavia. And, hell, actually what you said fits quite well together with my overall opinion about this genetical stuff. So i rather (happily) agree with you on that instead of being motivated to do anything else LOL.

Can you give an approximate timeframe though (just asking out of interest)? I think it occured during the Scandinavian Megalithic Culture, or?

EDIT: note that general HG I is much OLDER than I1a or more detailed mutations.

[Getwulf]

I'm really not sure about this genetics stuff (and i really don't care much) and i already mentioned that i think I1a was much rather spread about during historical times from Sacandinavia. And, hell, actually what you said fits quite well together with my overall opinion about this genetical stuff. So i rather (happily) agree with you on that instead of being motivated to do anything else LOL.

Can you give an approximate timeframe though (just asking out of interest)? I think it occured during the Scandinavian Megalithic Culture, or?

EDIT: note that general HG I is much OLDER than I1a or more detailed mutations.

I believe you're asking about the spread of Haplogroup I? Was it during the Scandinavian Megalithic Culture? Well I have absolutely no idea!! We basically know that Haplogroup I emerged somewhere between (what is today) the western Balkans and the region of Moldova. We also know that it was common for Scandinavia/North Germany and this southern region to exchange populations during the period of the last Ice Age. As such, it is likely that Jordanes might have been on to something when he was talking about "Baireik" and "Filimer" in Scandinavia. However, we have no archeological proof of it. Even if we were to find such proof it would not change the fact that what we would later call "Getae" and "Goths" (in fact Guthans) were already related.

[swabian]

2. That the Goths are considered to have migrated from Scandinavia despite the fact that there is no evidence for a Gothic culture at the time of their supposed migration as given by Jordanes. That is sometime between 1500 BC and 2500 BC. More importantly there is no solid Scandinavian proof of a migration during the "consensus period" between 300 BC and 300 AD.
]

What??? The Gothic migration could not possibly have taken place between 1500 BC and 2500 BC.

As such, it is likely that Jordanes might have been on to something when he was talking about "Baireik" and "Filimer" in Scandinavia. However, we have no archeological proof of it. Even if we were to find such proof it would not change the fact that what we would later call "Getae" and "Goths" (in fact Guthans) were already related.

Dude...