Thesis:
Jordanes is in fact telling the truth when he says that the Getae and the Goths are the same people. However, the idea of the Goths being descended from Scandinavia and arriving in three boats is in fact a myth.
Argument against:
See Arne Soby Christensen “Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the Goths: A Study in Migration Myth”
Christensen holds the exact opposite point of view. He thinks only the part about them coming from Scandinavia is true and that Jordanes tried to enrich the history of the Goths. This is the “confusion” argument so favoured by the Scandinavians. It is rather strange that this is also the mainstream view.
We will begin by dealing with Christensen and Scandinavia. Nowhere do we see Jordanes call the Goths a “German” or “Germanic” people. Also, Jordanes never mentions them being “Celts”. More importantly there is absolutely no proof of the Goths living in Scandinavia during the dates that Jordanes describes. We will deal with those dates later! Archeological proof of North Germans and Scandinavians shows us that the people inhabiting those lands were in fact Celtic in origin. Here I would like to display the “bog bodies” discovered in the North.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_body
I hate to use Wikipedia but it is a concise article that goes straight to the point. It is obviously clear that the early Scandinavians/North Germans were not “Goths”. These early people are closest to what we would call a “Celtic” culture.
TBC...
When Baireik was their king the Goths allegedly came from Scandinavia. Then what happened? Jordanes tells us that…
“We read that on their first migration the Goths dwelt in the land of Scythia near the Sea of Asov. On the second migration they went to Moesia, Thrace and Dacia, and after their third they dwelt again in Scythia, above the Black Sea.”
Jordanes, Getica, 38
So the Goths had three migrations. One was deep in Scythia to the Sea of Azov. The next was in Dacia, Thrace and Moesia. The third was back in Scythia, in this case the Moldova-Ukraine region.
So what was the period when they dwelt in Dacia and Moesia?
“In their second home, that is, in the countries of Dacia, Thrace and Moesia, Zalmoxes reigned, whom many writers of annals mention as a man of remarkable learning in philosophy.”
Jordanes, Getica, 39
The date is probably somewhere between 1400 BC and 1000 BC This date is again confirmed when Jordanes says…
“Lest anyone say that this name is quite foreign to the Gothic tongue, let the ignorant find fault with the fact that the tribes of men make use of many names, even as the Romans borrow from the Macedonians, the Greeks from the Romans, the Sarmatians from the Germans, and the Goths frequently from the Huns.”
Jordanes, Getica, 59
“This Telephus, then, a son of Hercules by Auge, and the husband of a sister of Priam, was of towering stature and terrible strength. He matched his father's valor by virtues of his own and also recalled his sonship of Hercules by his likeness in appearance. Our ancestors called his kingdom Moesia.”
Jordanes, Getica, 60
TBC...
Now on their third migration the Goths dwelt back again in the Moldova-Ukraine region. This was mostly due to the fact that they had been evicted during the Daco-Roman wars from their homelands. This is the 300 AD period when they begin to reconquer their homeland. Most historians consider this to be proof of the fact that the Goths came from the north but this is not so. It is in fact after this time that the Goths begin to move to the North. Jordanes complains that…
“Some of the ancient writers also agree with the tale. Among these we may mention Josephus, a most reliable relator of annals, who everywhere follows the rule of truth and unravels from the beginning the origin of causes; --but why he has omitted the beginnings of the race of the Goths, of which I have spoken, I do not know.”
Jordanes, Getica, 29
In other words, Josephus (probably Titus Flavius Josephus) and other writers agree with his history but not with the part about northern descent.
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat
- er, sociological and psychological departments). The historians in my university are fortunately mostly above this kind of bias.
