Talk:Gothiscandza

Scandza
Scandza came from Skåne (Swedish) the southern part of Sweden. Skanör is the most dangerous place for sandbarrels. The ship take "skada". From skada to "skada - öresund" (skanör). Scandza to scania to scandinavia and landscape Skåne. Here in southern Sweden many names comes from south - because the people originally move from south towards north. Scania therefore reflected Scandinavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.89.29 (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Does Scandza actually occur as simplex in Jordanes (as claimed on Scandza)? This would speak against the reading gutisk-andja. We should make clear how much depends on the competing analyses of gutisk-andja and guti-skandja (haplological for gutisk-skandja?) dab (&#5839;) 09:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, sure. You can have a go at the article. I am writing an article at the moment, and then I have to go teaching.--Wiglaf 09:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't remember having seen anything but Scandza and Gothiscandza in Getica. The interpretation Gothi-Scandza seems plausible, but I hesitate about the meaning of it. Could it be the "Gothic Scandinavia"?--Wiglaf 22:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "gothi-" seems rather strange. It would have to be "gothisk-". Jordanes, according to Mierow's translation (is the original text online?) does have the simplex, Scandza, right in the introduction:
 * "The same mighty sea has also in its arctic region, that is in the north, a great island named Scandza, from which my tale (by God's grace) shall take its beginning."
 * Now, Gothiscandza appears right next to Scandza:
 * " Now from this island of Scandza, as from a hive of races or a womb of nations, the Goths are said to have come forth long ago under their king, Berig by name. As soon as they disembarked from their ships and set foot on the land, they straightway gave their name to the place. And even to-day it is said to be called Gothiscandza."
 * and the implication would be that the names are related. This may be Jordanes' misunderstanding, though. How are we going to reconcile Pliny's Scandia and Jordanes Scandza? It seems quite possible that Scandinavia was simply Scandia, and the new home of the Goths was Gutisk-andza. Jordanes (or his sources) would have misunderstood this as Guti-skandza and believed that Scandza=Scandia. This is just my own speculation at this point, but I am sure this must be discussed in literature somewhere, I'll try to find a reference. The alternative would be that it was, indeed "gutisk-skandja" which was simplified (haplology, even the barbarians weren't fond of saying "-sk-sk-" all the time) to "gutiskandja" and rendered as "gothiscandza" in Latin. dab (&#5839;) 17:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, there must be some literature on this. Here are some links to Latin versions of the text IORDANIS DE ORIGINE ACTIBUSQUE GETARUM and IntraText. My objection to the interpretation Gothisk-skandza/ia is semantic. If they migrated from Scandia, there would be a strong metonymic relationship between Goths and Scandza, as between Englishmen and Britain. Now, naming the new settlement Gothic Scandza would be to lift out that metonymy, but for a new location, when the old location would still be very much alive as a concept. Imagine that someone called New England English Britain, then it would seem rather strange. This is due to the metonymic relationship between English and Britain which makes the application to a new location seem unlikely. Then again, the tradition of a Scandinavian origin may be inspired by the similarity between Scandia and Gothiscanza.--Wiglaf 20:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Madison Grant's map


This is the perfect illustration for the article Gothiscandza. The Goths from Scandinavia crossing the Baltic around 1900 BC to the Vistula Basin. /Pieter Kuiper 22:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: Berig removed part of Pieter Kuiper's post here. As per talk page guidelines, I restored the post, adding "thumb" to reduce the displayed image size. — Athaenara ✉  20:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I restored the Third opinion request. To user Berig Briangotts:  in order to aid editor consensus, and rather than relying upon edit summaries alone, please comment here on your reasons for removing the map from the article. — Athaenara  ✉  20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Further confusion: It was  who removed the image from the article, while it was  who removed it from this talk page.  I'm assuming neither that they're the same editor nor that they are two editors; I simply don't know.  — Athaenara  ✉  21:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Before you even raise the possibility that Berig and I are sockpuppets of one another, a cursory review of each of our edit histories might be in order. It's an extremely serious allegation to even point out the possibility of, albeit obliquely. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute here...merely a contention. This or these individual(s) acts through subterfuge and fails to properly defend his position. Restore the map and request admin help in blocking/warning this or these individual(s). :)  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I followed up on DRosenbach's view and restored the map to the article. I don't know what the best placement would be, but I think not at the top of the article.  — Athaenara  ✉  04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on this map at Talk:Berig, and my comments hold true for this article as well. In short, it is a map created by a non-historian eugenicist who based it on outdated notions of race (i.e., to prove that the "Nordic race" was superior to the "alpine" and "Mediterranean" races. It was not based on serious historical research or archeoglogy. It is very relevant in the article about Madison Grant, as it illustrates his ideas. Its placement in a history article, to illustrate that history is entirely improper. I note further that here Pieter acknowledges that the Grant map is pseudoscience. Don't see any good faith dispute here. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reason for Briangotts censoring this map is that Madison Grant is in general disrespect now. That is not relevant. What counts is that this is a detailed, high-resolution map in nice colors, showing Goths settling in the Vistula Basin. If Briangotts prefers an illustration of similar relevance and quality from some old historical atlas, that would be fine with me. But it does not seem that Briangotts is prepared to make that effort of trying to find a suitable replacement. He is just erasing. /Pieter Kuiper 14:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The map is not a reliable source. Berig's map is referenced to a number of reliable historical sources and its placement is therefore proper. Being "in nice colors" is not a qualification for an image appearing or being used for a particular purpose. While I would like to find a "detailed, high-resolution map in nice colors" as PK suggests, it is certainly not my responsibility to do so. It is his responsibility to demonstrate why the map is appropriate here, and he has failed to do so in any substantive manner.
 * I have tried to assume good faith on PK's part as he clearly has not reviewed or understood many of WP's policies but it is getting difficult. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that Briangotts read WP:IMAGES. This map is pertinent, and it is properly sourced. /Pieter Kuiper 14:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you write a section on racist and nazi theories in relation to Gothiscandza, it may have a place in the article.--Berig 16:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite so. The map is suitable for a particular purpose- that purpose being to illustrate the theories of Madison Grant and others who subscribed to similar, outdated racial theories. It is not suitable to illustrate historical fact. "Properly sourced" means only that the source is given, it does not mean that the source is reliable for the purpose the map is used for. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As a final comment from me, as I've been keeping an eye on this discussion since it was posted on 3o, is that you may need to take this to WP:RFC/HIST for a wider community view if you're unable to come to an agreement. 3o isn't applicable any more as there's more than two editors involved in the discussion already, but RFC may be what you need to form a wider consensus. --User: (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea, Darkwind. However, before it happens I'd like to have a real discussion with Athanarea and DRosenbach about their motivation for a racist pseudo-scientific map in an article on a 6h century legend. IMHO, such a map is highly off-topic and there are many many maps that are more relevant.--Berig 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't know if it's entirely clear, but just to remove any confusion: The map was created by a pseudoscientific racist with no training in what we would consider the modern disciplines of history, archeology or anthropology, who believed without evidence in nonexisitent "Nordic", "Alpine", and "Mediterranean" races (which are depicted on this map). He further believed that all of the great acheivements of civilization were the result of the Nordic race's superiority and held non-whites in contempt. This is the background of the map that is being defended here to illustrate historical fact. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if the above were NOT true, the map is hopelessly flawed because it purports to illustrate 2000 years of history in one map, mixing together people who lived at vastly different times without proper annotations. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do, however, believe that the map is appropriate in such articles as Nordic theory (to which I have added it), since it is not used in those articles to illustrate historical fact but rather to illustrate the discredited theories discussed therein. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As one of the Third opinion Wikipedians, I saw that a request had been posted and removed and, upon investigation, found further that an article talk page post by one user, whose edits were being reverted by a second user without discussion, had been altered (again without discussion) by a third user.

WP:3O followed up on that, and now there is discussion. — Athaenara ✉  18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter, I can't see how Wikipedia could justify use of that map in the context you want to use it. It was created by a lawyer who believed in eugenics. There's no indication of specialist knowledge on his part, or that his ideas were accepted by mainstream thinkers. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The appearance of the Grant's map, especially the area I cropped, is very similar to other maps. I dug up my DTV-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte (1964). On page 20 (pre-classical times) is a B/W map with "Germanen" in Scandinavia and in Northern Germany. It is almost drawn as a bridgehead in warfare, sharp knife-like arrows protruding into the rest of Europa. On page 108 is a map about migrations in the first millennium. The island Bornholm is labeled Burgunderholm, Goths arrive with an arrow in the Vistula Basin. Some Germanic tribes are labeled with a question mark. Page 110 has "Gauten" in Sweden and "Dänen" in Denmark, but Slavs have pushed back the germanic area almost to the Weser. Did that draftsman have political convictions? Probably. /Pieter Kuiper 19:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, stick to the topic Pieter. We are discussing why you want a racist map by Madison Grant in this article, not your opinion whether it has scattered resemblances to scholarly maps.--Berig 19:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussion within the limits specified in the civility and no personal attacks policies. Thank you.  — Athaenara  ✉  20:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Athaenara. Could you please explain in what way my previous post was a personal attack? You are making a very serious allegation here. There are many scholarly maps that he could have used instead, and as you probably know most pseudo-scientific maps have things in common with scholarly maps. That is why I asked him to stick to the topic.--Berig 06:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The DTV-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte (1964) is not PD; so I cannot use it here. This image by Shepherd is free: Image:German migrations 150 1066.jpg. However, it the wrong period to be pertinent as an illustration of the Jordanes story. Also, it is not as visually attractive. /Pieter Kuiper 07:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are maps on commons that you could have used, like Image:Karte völkerwanderung.jpg. I take the liberty of showing it here, since your map appears to be permitted to be shown.--Berig 07:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Where was that map published? Seems unsourced to me. Also, the period 150-200 cannot pertain to Jordanes story. /Pieter Kuiper 07:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think 150 AD is relevant to Jordanes' account since the Goths are commonly held to have been residing in northern Poland at the time.--Berig 08:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Jordanes they were out of there before the Trojan War. /Pieter Kuiper 08:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Jordanes, Gothiscandza was still called so in the 6th c. AD (And even to-day it is said to be called Gothiscandza.). Moreover, according to archaeologists the Goths did not leave the territory until the 3rd and the 4th centuries AD. So, I am afraid that there are some problems with your argumentation here.--Berig 13:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Already 1887 K. Müllenhoff believed that Cassiodorus had just invented the name "Gothiscandza" (cited by Arne Søby Christensen). Archeologists have not uncovered any road signs with incriptions "Gothiscandza" as far as I am aware. /Pieter Kuiper 13:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The degree of reliability of Jordanes' Getica is a continuing academic debate to be solved in scholarly publications, not on this talkpage.--Berig 14:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The name Gothiscandza is generally considered to live on in modern "Gdansk". /Leos Friend 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally?? Will the city have a 3500-year brthday bash in 2010?? /Pieter Kuiper 19:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of Egypt or Hellas? You can check Gdansk and Gdynia river up on Google. /Leos Friend 19:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Scandza came from Skåne (Swedish) the southern part of Sweden. Skanör is the most dangerous place for sandbarrels. The ship take "skada". From skada to "skada - öresund" (skanör). Scandza to scania to scandinavia and landscape Skåne. Here in southern Sweden many names comes from south - because the people originally move from south towards north. Scania therefore reflected Scandinavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.89.29 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Vote


Athaenara, DRosenbach and Pieter Kuiper have argued that we should use a map Image:Goths(Madison Grant).jpg, cropped by Pieter Kuiper from a map by Madison Grant, in the article, whereas SlimVirgin, Briangotts and I have argued that we should not. In order to reach a solution and avoid further edit wars, I suggest that we have a vote:


 * Oppose. A map made by a eugenics advocate who was neither an archaeologist nor a historian.--Berig 13:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A visually attractive map, properly sourced, illustrating a naïve reading of Jordanes, made by a competent draughtsman. /Pieter Kuiper 14:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Berig. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove pseudo-historical map so as not to mislead our readers. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The map is just reflecting Getica 25, "Scandza, a hive of races or a womb of nations" (which was misleading Ostrogothic state propaganda, I agree). /Pieter Kuiper 17:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The only reason P.K. wants this map here is because he wants to discredit Jordanes and defenders of the classical/traditional history view. It would be very easy to draw a new map depicting Jordane's descriptions. /Leos Friend 19:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Such a map would be original research (WP:OR). /Pieter Kuiper 20:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Removal from dispute. My profuse apologies -- when I provided a 3PO, it was my understanding that the argument was between one editor who had been posting his/her position and another editor who was merely editing/posting/deleting things without contributing to the dispute argument on the talk page.  It was for this reason that I recommended that the map be replaced and those editing without discussing should be blocked as vandals.  As I have been alerted that this was not the case, my recommendation should be struck from the record and I will henceforth not involve myself in this dispute.  Sorry. :)  DRosenbach  ( Talk 01:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Berig. Valentinian T / C 23:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * comment - if someone may make some type of explanation to the values of using the mape and the cons, i may be able to get more acquainted with the material and perhaps give an uninvolved party opinion. otherwise, it's a bit too vague for me.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kulikowski on intellectual continuity
Michael Kulikowski writes on page 49 of "Rome's Gothic Wars":
 * Recent debates about barbarian society and Gothic origins have been poisoned by the mistaken belief that the intellectual continuity of pre- and postwar scholarship must imply political continuity. That is simply not the case. Yet the fact of this intellectual continuity is of fundamental importance, not for political reasons, but because it shows that the most self-consciously modern work on the barbarians rests on older scholarship rooted in a quest for Germanic origins. The Goths, and in particular Jordanes' Gothic history, have been central to any such quest since the Renaissance, and much of the continued reliance on Jordanes is rooted in that time-honoured tradition. Unfortunately, Jordanes' history cannot bear the weight that is placed on it.

/Pieter Kuiper 18:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gothiscandza and Kossinna
On the, now deleted as unreferenced, notion about the re-introduction of Gothiscandza to the German scholarship via Gustav Kossinna: it does exist. It was mentioned by Rolh Hachmann, Die Goten und Skandinavien, De Gruyter, 1970. Someone with access to that work may verify, provide page number and re-incarnate the deleted text in the article. Dipa1965 (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter Kuiper: it would be better to find the page number before reviving the connection between the importance of Gothiscandja and a 19th-20th century racist archaeologist. Then put this info in the article as an in-line citation or footnote. This is how proper references are made. Otherwise, Berig may revert it again, although the rest of the article misses a lot of references too. I am sure no one wants another edit war. Dipa1965 (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I read about Kossinna in a book that I had on interlibrary loan, probably Mikael Kulikowsky, maybe Arne Søby Christensen. The wikilink to Kossinna is in itself a reference. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see why Pieter Kuiper finds racist theories notable in this case, when there's non-racist scholarship to refer to. Maybe he could also add non-racist scholars to the article?--Berig (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the move of Kossinna reference from the lead, because it suits better to the current structure of the article. It remains important, though, because of the revival of the Gothiscandza and also of his role in the creation of the "archaeologic-linguistic" school. Kossinna's theories actually still have a strong, though indirect, influence on the modern scholarship in Germany, Scandinavia and elsewhere. They also exercise a strong direct influence on the basic education institutions of those countries, as I am pretty sure one can easily notice in the editing history of this article. Dipa1965 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, the problem with the recent edits isn't Kossinna himself but our bias that tries to push the balance of controversial articles to the desired POV. Removal of warning templates and hasty incorporation (and removal) of unreferenced connections to deprecated scholars do prove that here. What we should do in such cases is to present all notable povs (properly referenced). For instance, I do think that Jordanes' story about Gothiscandza is almost entirely fictional, but what view *I* prefer doesn't matter since there is not such a thing as a scholarship consensus on the historicity of the Gothiscandza. Quite important scholars like H. Wolfram, R. Wenskus, W. Pohl and P. Heather did found some (or much) value in it while others, like Hachmann, Goffart, Amory et al., discredited it completely. However, the article in its current form doesn't even present a properly cited version of that POV. What I see is large amounts of original research and en masse copying of (also unreferenced) material from the Wielbark culture article. Dipa1965 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * and the unreferenced-material saga continues.... Is it so hard for you people to cite a reliable source that supports your edits? --Dipa1965 (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The new stuff that has now been added to the lead with "several archeologist and historians have proposed" is rather questionable when one reads Gdansk (sources are quoted there). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gothiscandza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040821091243/http://www.arkeologi.uu.se/publications/opia/gothicabstract.htm to http://www.arkeologi.uu.se/publications/opia/gothicabstract.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Gdansk
Why is it left out that this is the original name of Gdansk?188.172.108.164 (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)