The Goths: Unraveling the Myth of the Getae

[Getwulf]

OK, so there is any prouve that all goths speak germanic? There is any ancient text where goths are named germanic? There is any significant archeological prouve who show us that goths, as an all, are a people coming from Scandinavia (i know just one source saying that, Jordanes, and is interesting to see how some believeing him here, but doubt him on other things)? Why the romans used "Geticus" and Goticus" when fight with them, instead of "Germanicus", as they used in relation with any other germanic tribe in Europe? Why goths themselves consider a prestige the fact they had dacians as ancestors? Isnt this a prouve of the prestige of dacians, and of the fact that dacians was part of the gothic mix, with germanic and even sarmatians participating in it?

You're right diegis. The only proof of a "Gothic" language comes from Moesia. However, none of the Germanic populations can prove that they spoke a similar language to Gothic. In fact if we carefully read Jordanes we can only assume that it is in fact the Germans that borrowed from the Getic language. Not the other way around as everyone claims. The "Adamclisi" monument and "Trajan's Column" show German people like the "Basternae" in the service of the Geto-Dacians. They were not the"Master-Race" rather they were the "Labour-Race".

All Germanics come from Scandinavia or very close to Scandinavia.

Well then you should have no problem showing me the "Scandinavian" Goths? Civic I get the strange impression that you're prepared to believe anything.

[justinius]

So your point is... what? Because nobody is saying the Carpi weren't influenced by other barbarians, just as the Carpi influenced them in turn. The fact still remains that they are Dacians.

The point is that it is not a fact. There is simply not enough evidence to support either case and I'm definitely in favour of Sarmatian origins.

You think incorrectly then. Since 1960 at the latest, with the publication of Vasili Georgiev's work "The genesis of the Balkan Peoples" we have known how to distinguish Dacians from Thracians.
http://www.kroraina.com/vg/vg.html

I never said we could not distinguish them in history. I said many (far from all) people were confused because archaeologically they were similar. Either way Dacians are from the Thracian family.

They got things wrong about the past, not about their present time.

Well it just so happens to be that ethnicity is a thing of the past.

[Getwulf]

"ITH THU THAN BIDJAIS GAGG IN HETHJON THEINA JAH GALUKANDS HOURDAI THEINAI BIDEI DU ATTIN THEINAMMA THAMMA IN FULHSNJA JAH ATTA THEINS SAEI SAIKWITH IN FULHSNJA USGIBITH THUS IN BAIRHTEIN" / MATT 6, 6

Come on Germanics! Why are you ignoring my challenge...?

Kwa thu ni rodida theins razda?

[Visarion]

The point is that it is not a fact. There is simply not enough evidence to support either case and I'm definitely in favour of Sarmatian origins.

The Carpians or Carpi were attested by the name of Callipids (Calipizi) by Herodotus (484-425 BC) as the people that lived in the area between the Eastern Carpathian Mountains and the river Bug and by the name of Carpids (Carpizi) by Ephorus (400-330 BC). Sarmatians came much later!

[CiviC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_language

Maybe Getwulf will finally take a look at this article and demonstrate how Gothic language was not Germanic.

I'll give hime even a comparative chart

strong verbs ("to give") :

• Gothic: infinitive giban, preterite gaf ;
• English: infinitive (to) give, preterite gave ;
• German: infinitive geben, preterite gab ;
• Icelandic: infinitive gefa, preterite gaf.
• Dutch: infinitive geven, preterite gaf ;
• Swedish: infinitive giva (ge), preterite gav

Well then you should have no problem showing me the "Scandinavian" Goths? Civic I get the strange impression that you're prepared to believe anything.[/QUOTE]

I have the impression you beleive every possible fantasy and fabricated history of ancient writers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_Culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernyakhov_culture

Chernyakhov Culture had many elements preluated from Wielbark culture. It coincided with the arrival of Goth North of Black Sea and with the area dominated by them. It ended with the arrival of Huns and displacement of Goths. It had local elements too from Dacians and Sarmatians but to conclude Goths are Gets is exagerated. No serious historian affirms this.

To beleive just like that the fabrications of Jordanes is silly in my opinion. Anyone who studies history in University is instructed to treat with reserve the informations of ancient authors and check them with archeology and other sources.

• strong verbs ("to give") :
  
  • Gothic: infinitive giban, preterite gaf ;
  • English: infinitive (to) give, preterite gave ;
  • German: infinitive geben, preterite gab ;
  • Icelandic: infinitive gefa, preterite gaf.
  • Dutch: infinitive geven, preterite gaf ;
  • Swedish: infinitive giva (ge), preterite gav
  
  

[Getwulf]

The point is that it is not a fact. There is simply not enough evidence to support either case and I'm definitely in favour of Sarmatian origins.



I never said we could not distinguish them in history. I said many (far from all) people were confused because archaeologically they were similar. Either way Dacians are from the Thracian family.

You wish...! The Geto-Dacians are a different group of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_language

Maybe Getwulf will finally take a look at this article and demonstrate how Gothic language was not Germanic.

I'll give hime even a comparative chart

• weak verbs ("to have") :
  
  • Gothic: haban, preterite habáida, past participle habáiþs ;
  • English: (to) have, preterite had, past participle had ;
  • German: haben, preterite hatte, past participle (ge)habt ;
  • Icelandic: hafa, preterite hafði, past participle haft ;
  • Dutch: hebben, preterite had, past participle (ge)had ;
  • Swedish: ha(va), preterite hade, supine haft ;
  
  

• strong verbs ("to give") :
  
  • Gothic: infinitive giban, preterite gaf ;
  • English: infinitive (to) give, preterite gave ;
  • German: infinitive geben, preterite gab ;
  • Icelandic: infinitive gefa, preterite gaf.
  • Dutch: infinitive geven, preterite gaf ;
  • Swedish: infinitive giva (ge), preterite gav
  
  

That's not the point. Try and think a little... What proof is there that any of these people spoke such a language prior to the 5th C. AD? As there is no proof, how can you possibly claim that the language came from Scandinavia because a language that is somewhat derived from Gothic is spoken there today? By the way Iceland only becomes inhabited around the 9th C. AD. Can you take a wild guess where the Heruli lived prior to that? Let's say around 3rd C. AD?

[Visarion]

Maybe Getwulf will finally take a look at this article and demonstrate how Gothic language was not Germanic.

I'll give him even a comparative chart

• weak verbs ("to have") :
  
  • Gothic: haban, preterite habáida, past participle habáiþs ;
  • English: (to) have, preterite had, past participle had ;
  • German: haben, preterite hatte, past participle (ge)habt ;
  • Icelandic: hafa, preterite hafði, past participle haft ;
  • Dutch: hebben, preterite had, past participle (ge)had ;
  • Swedish: ha(va), preterite hade, supine haft ;

• strong verbs ("to give") :
  
  • Gothic: infinitive giban, preterite gaf ;
  • English: infinitive (to) give, preterite gave ;
  • German: infinitive geben, preterite gab ;
  • Icelandic: infinitive gefa, preterite gaf.
  • Dutch: infinitive geven, preterite gaf ;
  • Swedish: infinitive giva (ge), preterite gav

You mean the "Gothic language" after the Western Roman Empire fell and was ruled by Germans? What about the writings in Latin? Of course that in that period it was better to be German and they adopted German language! Before that they spoke Latin just like Daco-Romans and free Dacians did! What other German tribe spoke Latin in that timeframe? Carpians, a Dacian tribe, ruled the fallowing tribes - the Dacian Costoboci and Daci Magni, the Sarmatian Roxolani, the German Bastarnae and the Balto-German Gepidae.

Question: If Goths lived in Northern Europe further east than Gepidae did then why were Gepidae Balto-Germans?

[Getwulf]

You mean the "Gothic language" after the Western Roman Empire fell and was ruled by Germans? What about the writings in Latin? Of course that in that period it was better to be German and they adopted German language! Before that they spoke Latin just like Daco-Romans and free Dacians did!

Again pure speculation on your part. The only evidence of a language spoken in "Dacia, Moesia and Scythia Minor" besides some very, very short phrases that were either written in Latin or Greek is the "Gothic" language.

[Visarion]

and your Gothic language is? Dacian?

[Getwulf]

and your Gothic language is? Dacian?

In the absence of other proof about the "Getic" language we have to admit that "Gothic" is probably the closest that we're going to get!

[Carpathian Wolf]

After 8 pages I still don't see your point Getwulf. All you have is "Jordanes said!" and then "Look! ist un stroodle ladle waggle!" This is teh GETAI language!!!!

And that's pretty much been the argument.

[Edelward]

Yeah , this topic sooner fits into psychology :by the name what is it in human mind which make it to fabricate history ?

Gotlanders had latest migrants to settle their cousin-kin Crimean Goths in 12 century .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotlander .

It was recorded,Gutsaga, that they have tradition to move Southward . As soon as they think they are too many on island Gotland they send every third to migrate.
..'over a long time, the people descended from these three multiplied so much that the land couldn't support them all. Then they draw lots, and every third person was picked to leave, and they could keep everything they owned and take it with them, except for their land. ... they went up the river Dvina, up through Russia. They went so far that they came to the land of the Greeks. ... they settled there, and live there still, and still have something of our language.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutasaga
In fact it was cultural phenomena of that area other Eastern Germanics Burgundians ,who originate from island Bornholm had similar tradition :every third to migrate . Science could prove it trough archeology :
the number of the graves notably diminished exact in the period of their supposed migration.

The OP tricking us into trap. He accept only what he need from Jordanes. Goths being in Getica.
But he immediately descards Jordanes saying Goths are from Scandinavia as not suiting to OP's interests.
OP also discards Alani it is proves he is just partial interested .
**Jordanes writes about himself almost in passing:[5][6]
The Sciri, moreover, and the Sadagarii and certain of the Alani with their leader, Candac by name, received Scythia Minor and Lower Moesia.** .Why not to mention Alani in Lower Moesia - are they not good enough for you? That was known for thousand years that Goths were not alone they were allying with other migration people like Alani and Hunns,and with people who lived before that perod like Roman-Gauls when they came into conflict with Hunns.///In the summer and fall of 376, tens of thousands[citation needed] of displaced Goths and other tribes arrived on the Danube River, on the border of the Roman Empire, requesting asylum from the Huns///They also lived in Aquitania ,which by OP logic makes them Basques . Ofc every big force and migration would have some allied bands ,but would they change ethnicity it would be noted don't you agree?
What eventually destroys OP theory is well known and established fact that the Goths have two groups
Western in Danubian plains and Eastern in Ukraine .Thervingi and Greuthungi. So they were definitely not Danubian Geticae.

Goths have identified Eastern Germanic language,the names of their kings are identifiably Germanic ,and
for science thats enough . They had plenty of contact with Sarmatians(which left biggest impact on them)
Danubians,Italics,Aquitanians, but not enough to be molded into any of this groups.So this debate is irrelevant.

[justinius]

The Carpians or Carpi were attested by the name of Callipids (Calipizi) by Herodotus (484-425 BC) as the people that lived in the area between the Eastern Carpathian Mountains and the river Bug and by the name of Carpids (Carpizi) by Ephorus (400-330 BC). Sarmatians came much later!

Actually Scytho-Sarmatians were presentat that time but I'm talking about the later Carpi that correspond to the time when the Goths settled in Moesia.

You wish...! The Geto-Dacians are a different group of people.

That's a sub-category.

[diegis]

Fortunately they left enough writtings in their language, unlike Franks or other Germanics to document their language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_language
If there were some non Germanics amongst them they were surely quickly assimilated.



All Germanics come from Scandinavia or very close to Scandinavia.



Because the Goths didn't lived in Germania, so Germanicus would have induced the impression that Emperor won his victories there not in Balkans.



Why Franks claimed descent from Troy? You answered yourself to the question : prestige.

Well, first gothic text is from VI century. This is couple centuries after they leaved Dacia area. There is not know what langauge (in fact i think was languages) this gothic mix of peoples spoked during the period they lived in Danube areas.

Yes, possible sometimes, in an unknown period, peoples who come to Black Sea region and mixed with Dacians and Sarmatians here, to originate in Scandinavia area. But there is no clear and significant archeological conection betwen goths and Scandinavia region (just Jordanes said that). Jordanes is as well the only one who mention some name of kings who ruled over goths, among them is Zalmoxis, Dicineus, etc. some dacian names too.

Your theory about why romans didnt took the title "Germanicus" when fight against goths is a little childish. Romans fight against goths not just in Balkan areas, but in west part of the empire as well. Belisarius for ex. took the title "Geticus Maximus" when defeated goths in Italy, and is laughable to consider that if they had a clear germanic identity they still wouldnt be called "germanics" just because they show up first in Dacia region.

My opinion is that goths was a mix of peoples, germanic, dacian, sarmatian, formed in Black Sea area, already partial romanized when entered in roman empire. At that point a large part of dacians from that mix remain in Dacia, just some of them, alongside germanic and some sarmatians too will migrate further in empire. Probably the germanic part becomed more dominant now, but still the dacian heritage and prestige was strong among the goths. Goths who will adopt latin anyway, and didnt use almost at all that germanic language, prouving that germanic part of them wasnt after all that strong.

[diegis]

Actually Scytho-Sarmatians were presentat that time but I'm talking about the later Carpi that correspond to the time when the Goths settled in Moesia.



That's a sub-category.

Carpi was ones of so called "Free Dacians" tribes, Romano-Dacis presented some very good bibliography to prouve that

[Carpathian Wolf]

Exactly. Anyone saying Goths were purely Germanic or that they were one and the same with Getae have a problem in their argument.

[justinius]

Carpi was ones of so called "Free Dacians" tribes, Romano-Dacis presented some very good bibliography to prouve that

Quote:
As for the Carpi, their location before 140 is unknown. A quote from the 6th-century Byzantine chronicler Zosimus referring to the καρποδάκαι (Latin: Carpo-Dacae or "Carpo-Dacians"), who attacked the Romans in the late 4th century, is seen as evidence of the Dacian ethnicity of the Carpi. But the term is ambiguous. While it could mean "the Dacian Carpi", it could equally signify "the Carpi and the Dacians" or "the Dacians from the Carpathians". The assumption of the victory-title Dacicus Maximus ("Totally Victorious over the Dacians") by the emperors Maximinus I (238), Decius (250) and Gallienus (257) after defeating transdanubian barbarians is also not conclusive as it is nowhere specified that the Carpi were involved. The contemporary existence of a separate victory-title, Carpicus Maximus, assumed by Philip the Arab (247), may imply that the Carpi were seen as distinct from the Daci. (Compare the title Sarmaticus Maximus, awarded for victories over Rome's Sarmatian adversaries, mostly the Iazyges, less often the Roxolani. There is no record of a separate individual title Iazygicus (or Roxolanicus). It follows that if the Carpi were Dacians, there would be no need of a separate Carpicus title, as they would be covered by Dacicus).[24]
It is therefore possible that the Costoboci and/or the Carpi were not ethnic-Dacians, but were Sarmatian or Germanic or even proto-Slavic groups as were most of their neighbours, and/or that they migrated into Moldavia at a late stage, around AD 100, perhaps taking advantage of the dislocations caused by the Roman conquest. In this case, the Daci properly so-called were a distinct group. In addition, the available evidence does not warrant the traditional assumptiom , based on their geographical proximity and supposed common Dacian ethnicity, that the Costoboci and the Carpi were close political allies. There is no evidence that the Carpi joined the Costoboci in their attacks on Roman Dacia during the Marcomannic Wars, or that they assisted the Costoboci when the latter were attacked and crushed by the Hasding branch of the Vandal Germans in AD 170.[25] It is possible that the two peoples were quite different in language and culture and that their relations were generally hostile.

[Visarion]

Dacians had already been defeated by Romans. Decebal's kingdom was in Southwest while the Carpian kingdom was in Norheast. Dacia and Carpia were different factions. Carpi were part of the Dacian kingdom only during Burebista. Before and after him they were independent and that's why the Roman used dacicus and carpicus. Relations between Thracians in general were hostile!

[Getwulf]

Yeah , this topic sooner fits into psychology :by the name what is it in human mind which make it to fabricate history ?

Gotlanders had latest migrants to settle their cousin-kin Crimean Goths in 12 century .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotlander .

It was recorded,Gutsaga, that they have tradition to move Southward . As soon as they think they are too many on island Gotland they send every third to migrate.
..'over a long time, the people descended from these three multiplied so much that the land couldn't support them all. Then they draw lots, and every third person was picked to leave, and they could keep everything they owned and take it with them, except for their land. ... they went up the river Dvina, up through Russia. They went so far that they came to the land of the Greeks. ... they settled there, and live there still, and still have something of our language.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutasaga

You must be joking...!!! Surely you can't be serious?

Gutasaga was recorded in the 13 th C. AD with the text surviving from the 14 th C. AD (1350 AD).

It also doesn't support your argument. From Northvegr - Gutasaga

"Gotland was first discovered by a man called Thielvar. At this time Gotland was bewitched so that it sank by day and [only] surfaced at night. But that man brought fire to the land for the first time, and after that it never sank.
This Thielvar had a son called Hafthi. And Hafthi's wife was called Whitestar. Those two were the first to settle on Gotland. The first night they slept together she dreamt that three snakes were coiled in her lap. And it seemed to her that they slid out of her lap. She told her dream to her husband Hafthi. He interpreted it thus:"

http://www.northvegr.org/lore/gutasaga/index.php

Somehow I find it odd that you would give historical credibility to "Gutasaga" but you consider my arguments to be "psychological". Also, Old Gutnish isn't "Gothic" it is just a different branch of "Old Norse". Again we run into the same problem that evidence from Scandinavia is actually long after the evidence that we find in Romania.

"The OP tricking us into trap. He accept only what he need from Jordanes. Goths being in Getica.
But he immediately descards Jordanes saying Goths are from Scandinavia as not suiting to OP's interests..."

"...Goths have two groups Western in Danubian plains and Eastern in Ukraine .Thervingi and Greuthungi. So they were definitely not Danubian Geticae.

Goths have identified Eastern Germanic language,the names of their kings are identifiably Germanic ,and
for science thats enough . They had plenty of contact with Sarmatians(which left biggest impact on them)
Danubians,Italics,Aquitanians, but not enough to be molded into any of this groups.So this debate is irrelevant."

First of all I'm not tricking you into any trap. I'm arguing that what Jordanes says about their beginnings has no equivalent in Scandinavia.

Second of all we are encountering two big problems:

1. The people posting here don't actually know what "Gothic" is.
2. The people posting here have absolutely no clue as to what Getic is.

You say that the "Danubian Geticae" don't have "Germanic" sounding names? Well you happen to be wrong!

Seuthes - Schutte, Roles - Rolfes, Dromichaites - Swedish "drom" meaning dream... The other ones have names more suitable to Baltic languages. One of the problems we have is that their names were recorded in Greek and Latin sources which simply changed their names into forms that were more convinient to the language in which they were recorded.

[Edelward]

It is your opinion .
Still Goth kin folk : Burgundians and their migration still is known:
*'The Burgundians' tradition of Scandinavian origin finds support in place-name evidence and archaeological evidence (Stjerna) and many consider their tradition to be correct (e.g. Musset, p. 62). Possibly because Scandinavia was beyond the horizon of the earliest Roman sources, including Tacitus (who only mentions one Scandinavian tribe, the Suiones), Roman sources do not mention where the Burgundians came from, and the first Roman references place them east of the Rhine (inteher alia, Ammianus Marcellinus, XVIII, 2, 15). Early Roman sources considered them simply another East Germanic tribe. he is also really cool
About 250, the population of Bornholm (the island of the Burgundians) largely disappeared from the island. Most cemeteries ceased to be used, and those that were still used had few burials (Stjerna, in Nerman 1925:176).**
You also failed to comment Goths who lived in Ukraine ,since it does not work with your idea.
Your fail to comment Alani in Moesia too ,you only want to be called Roman,Dacian,Goth ,but Alani and Cumans are not good for you.
Relax you are not Goth and we all know that .Germanics don't mix with strangers, without leaving a note-those are Bastards .
Goths as glorified nation by both Germans and Nordic were not mongrelised people .