Talk:Goths/Archive 12

New online open access source: Many papers
Perhaps useful. 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:
 * Roland Steinacher 2017, "Hintergründe und Herkommen der Barbaren am Schwarzen Meer im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr.", Empire in Crisis: Gothic Invasions and Roman Historiography.
 * p.412: "Sicher ist nur, dass der Goten/Gutonen/Gauten ebenso wie der Rugiername prestigeträchtig und prominent war. Unterschiedliche Verbände könnten sich solcher alter Namen zu verschiedenen Zeiten bedient haben." [emphasis added]
 * p.414: "Die Frage ist jedoch die der Quantität und ob man nun einfach Gutonen und Goten gleichsetzen kann. Meiner Ansicht nach ist eher von einer stetigen Neuverhandlung bzw. Neudefinition gutonischer bzw. gotischer Identität auszugehen."
 * Steinacher, Rom und die Barbaren p.50: Bei der historischen Beurteilung ist nun entscheidend, welche Rolle man den Wanderungsberichten in den Getica des Jordanes zugesteht, bzw. ob man eine gotische Identität und damit Geschichte schon vor dem 3. Jahrhunderd annimmt. In diesen Fragen ist sich die Forschung nicht einig. [emphasis added]

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)
 * [Wolfram.] this work also includes a new article about this period by Wolfram. Not necessarily relevant to this article, but perhaps for some of the others we have.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Therein, I've perused Wolfram's lecture [captured in the open source book], Ostrogotha — ansischer Amaler oder glückloser Feigling? and there is certainly content appropriate for the Ostrogoths page. --Obenritter (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * not sure if it will help the Ostrogoths page but the Wolfram article and least one other has information on Kniva and Ostrogotha (a person). Not sure if you've worked on those though. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * [Halsall and Heather.] Editors should compare this to our existing article(s). It is from Halsall's much-cited university-oriented text, which contains much secondary commentary, Barbarian Migrations pp.132-3: 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.
 * Concerning the "mothers" theory of Heather I mentioned above, although it does not mention the mothers themselves, this is a good counter-balancing quote (it cites Heather), continuing the same passage: 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)


 * I think it is important to note that the so-called Toronto and Vienna schools of historians do not have a duopoly on researching the Goths. Peter Heather belongs to neither of those schools and his works on the Goths are considered the most authoritative. For Gothic prehistory we have to rely primarily on archaeological evidence. Among archaeologists who gave conducted thorough case studies on Gothic archaeology, such as Michel Kazanski, Volker Bierbrauer, Andrzej Kokowski and Anders Kaliff, there is no doubt that the southern expansion and transformation of the Wielbark culture into the Chernyakhov culture is to be associated with Gothic migrations. Krakkos (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In this, you disagree with the scholars, as explained above. Your claim that I am comparing only two schools is another Krakkos. Halsall and Heather are in neither of the schools you mention. We have also already seen that you completely misunderstood (or misrepresented) the position of Kaliff. Concerning the other authors you mention can you help me access the works you are referring to? I am guessing they'll be consistent with the many other such cases you've brought here based on misunderstandings before (citing Jordanes as their source perhaps, but disagreeing with the Jordanes experts, or else openly espousing a Vienna style non-migration, or both). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You left out some very important paragraphs when quoting these pages from Halsall's textbook:
 * As we can see, Halsall writes that his textbook doesn't directly concern early Gothic history, and that there are better sources from Heather, Kazanski and Wolfram available on that subject, which he himself uses extensively. The source Halsall first points out as "the best" on 4th century Gothic history is "Goths and Huns, c. 320–425" by Peter Heather, which is part of the The Cambridge Ancient History. The following paragraphs by Heather from that work, which primarily cites Kazanski, are relevant to this discussion:
 * Rather than relying on textbooks from scholars who are not themselves experts on Goths, this article should rely on works from the foremost authorites on Goths. Krakkos (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but I really wish you'd post more from Kazanski, and I disagree with the emphasis a bit. First, Halsall is widely cited in this debate about the early migrations, and is clearly an RS, though of course I am not arguing with that basic principle, and obviously I have been comparing to Heather all along (though I continue to feel we should not rely on his tertiary works, and we can not treat one controversial person as defining the field consensus). However, please note that the topic I was focussing on, because it is the one relevant to the discussions, is earlier than the 4th century and the Danubian complex. The works which are normally cited for Heather (and by Heather) in this area are Goths and Romans, and Goths. Do you agree? Lastly, by my reading, Heather is in any case not far from Steinacher, Halsall etc in the above quote (and this is also true of what he writes in other works). I think the sources situation is pretty clear? Heather is seen as one of the main proponents of a real movement of people from the Vistula to the Black Sea, but he does not mean a literal migration. He talks about small groups moving over a long period. Do you agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC) ADDED: the quote you give also makes it clear that Heather sees the Germanic language of the Goths as something which came to the Black Sea through multiple Germanic speaking peoples, presumably including the much earlier Bastarnae who he believes were Germanic speaking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC) [ADDED: Note that we can also presume Heather and Halsall understand each other's positions very well.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)]
 * FWIW in the quotes I gave, the source repeatedly mentioned by Halsall himself, for that discussion, is "Heather 1996" which refers to Goths.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Halsall also cites Curta, as I believe Heather has on occasion. Our article never cites Curta. Here is an article which reviews some of the debates going on, and is certainly an RS: He points to Heather's own remarks which indicate that the archaeological evidence for the Vistula to Black Sea movement is today (as opposed to the 1990s) seen as weak. He agrees with other scholars that archaeology in this area needs to break free from Jordanes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Relevant to your negative remarks about Halsall's book, here is a scholarly review by Curta pointing out that the book will be valuable for scholars (not just students). I think for our purposes, a much-cited and positively-reviewed scholarly summary at this level is really useful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a point on method, esp. in citing archaeological views. Heather 1997 means = an overview of the results of publications down to 1995, 26 years ago. If a quarter of a century of intense excavation hadn't yielded up insights that finesse, deepen or challenge the picture, it would be very odd. One must always evaluate sources temporally, according where possible priority to the latest research in a topic area like this.Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean 1996?* But yes, Halsall does not cite Heather 1996 for the latest archaeology. I don't see any difficulty here concerning disagreements between Heather and Halsall on this, because Heather has clearly admitted the problem (as remarked by Curta) and focussed more on non-archaeological evidence in more recent publications. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, as shown by Halsall's review of this. I feel the difference between Halsall, Heather and a lot of scholars on this is just one of degree (how many people moved) and normally it should be easy to find a wording to reflect that. I see noone arguing for a simple migration, in the sense of a whole people moving from one place to another. FWIW both Heather and Liebeschuetz approvingly cite Wenskus in their discussions on why there was not necessarily a real migration, even though the name of a people seems to move from one place to another. So they take their queue from the Vienna school. The other main position on this topic is the sceptical one, like Kulikowski and Goffart, which is certainly also very common. But this is also easy to handle, because they are not arguing for a counter proposal, or even that Heather or Halsall are wrong. They are arguing that we just don't really know what happened. So a very important thing here, in this article, is avoiding turning uncertain things into certain things, or making overly strong claims about the "whole field".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * =– Heather, Peter (1997). "Goths and Huns, c. 320–425, cited by Krakkos above.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For record, Halsall cites that chapter by Heather in his bibliography as (1998c). ‘Goths and Huns, c.320–425’, in CAH 13, pp. 487–515. Krakkos (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. Anyway, similar logic applies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The fundamental work for modern research on Gothic archaeology was conducted in the 1990s, when the fall of the Soviet Union resulted in major progress in the archaeology of Eastern Europe. We should evaluate sources on the basis of reliability and relevance. Goffart and Kulikowski are historians rather than archaeologists. Heather is also a historian but has published works on Gothic archaeology that are widely cited. Halsall and Curta are both archaeologists, but Gothic archaeology is not their specialty. Halsall specializes in Anglo-Saxon and Frankish archaeology, while Curta specializes in Slavic archaeology. None of them have written anything substantial on Gothic archaeology, and the marginal amount of material they have written on Gothic archaeology is based on the field research of others from the 1990s. Two archaeologists who have conducted recent research on Gothic archaeology are Andrzej Kokowski (Polish) and Anders Kaliff (Swedish). They are both open to Scandinavian connections and are firmly convinced that migration played a role in the southern spread of the Wielbark culture and its transformation into the Chernyakhov culture. Here are some recent papers on Gothic archaeology that they have submitted.
 * Modern understanding of prehistory is currently being thoroughly revised as a result of progress in archaeogenetics. Our understanding of Gothic history will probably be revised as well. At least three archaeogenetic studies on Goths have so far been published, and they all corroborate the migration narrative.
 * Krakkos (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Modern understanding of prehistory is currently being thoroughly revised as a result of progress in archaeogenetics. Our understanding of Gothic history will probably be revised as well. At least three archaeogenetic studies on Goths have so far been published, and they all corroborate the migration narrative.
 * Krakkos (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Modern understanding of prehistory is currently being thoroughly revised as a result of progress in archaeogenetics. Our understanding of Gothic history will probably be revised as well. At least three archaeogenetic studies on Goths have so far been published, and they all corroborate the migration narrative.
 * Krakkos (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 13:49, 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?
 * Nobody has a problem citing archaeological articles for archaeological information. [ADDED: There does however appear to be a clear consensus not to load this article up with that type of topic, but rather to use supporting articles.] There is no debate here about that. (Our treatment of this Gothic-related archaeology on WP seems to show none of our editors have much interest in it? Better supporting articles on these topics would help this article.) You keep bringing up past disagreements, so I'll just remind you what this one was: your main use of archaeologists has been to use their remarks about Jordanes, not their archaeological information. That is inappropriate. We should Jordanes experts for the topic of Jordanes. We have also had very recent discussions which showed that your reading of Kaliff was misleading. It was another case where you cited an abstract. I can't believe you would have forgotten that?
 * I don't think anyone has a general problem with archaeogenetics either. It has started to make an impact in other areas of European history such as concerning England, or earlier periods in Eastern Europe, but it has not yet made any significant impact on this relatively recent period. As you and I know, the 3 articles you mention were once in this article, and are still in the Bibliography. They were removed by, after very extensive discussion involving several editors and I certainly support that, based on WP:UNDUE,WP:PRIMARY,WP:SCIRS,WP:OR,WP:SYNTH. Archived discussions: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nishidani emphasized the importance of citing recent archaeological research, and i responded by seeking to enlighten the discussion through sharing such recent archaeological sources with the community. That is not being confrontational, but rather being helpful. Krakkos (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ...And I guess you saw it as an opportunity to argue for those 3 genetics articles again, even though the problems with them were so clearly discussed. That's a minor annoyance which has taken a lot of space. But more worrying to me, in terms of how you keep reopening things, and makes discussion go in circles, is that you are doubling-down on Kaliff which is a very recent topic. I am very taken aback in your post above by your suggestion that Kaliff is "firmly convinced that migration played a role in the southern spread of the Wielbark culture and its transformation into the Chernyakhov culture".
 * For goodness sake Krakkos, we have discussed how this was based on your quote from the abstract, which clearly distorted the author's intention. (Me: ; Nishdani's agreement ; your rewrite annoucement which seemed to accept the problem: .) Kaliff is certainly no believer in a literal Jordanes migration, but wrote about "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!?
 * I have to wonder what kind of evidence I could ever bring to you, about anything at all, which you would actually accept and not reject out of principle. You seem totally closed to anything I write.
 * The practical effect of your stubborn refusal to accept any corrections or concerns at all from me on this article is very apparent if we compare to the spin-off articles such as Name of the Goths, Gutones, Origin stories of the Goths, which are so much better concerning exactly these topics, and don't have any problem explaining things which are impossible to discuss here; such as how to both distinguish and link the Gutones and Goths, or how to explain that there may have been a movement of culture or people without a mass migration. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kaliff's paragraph on "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)
 * OK that is not how I understood you, and it seems is more reasonable position! A small step forward? However, this article you cite is mainly about the Scandinavian connection isn't it. And honestly I don't see a big difference with what he says about the Poland-Black Sea shift? 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)
 * How wonderful that you are starting appreciate the research of Kaliff. We should be perhaps expand the quotation from Kaliff so that we get in full context:
 * As Kaliff is largely citing Kokowski for discussion of the role of Gothic migrations in the role of the spread and transformation of the Wielbark culture in the Chernyakhov culture, we may add some quotes from Kokowski too:
 * Krakkos (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Krakkos (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * These quotes seems to give the essence of what scholarship is saying about the archaeological record, suggesting the following synthesis for the early history section.
 * "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.'"
 * Something like that, surely? The error, if there is one, in terms of structure, looks like it arises from privileging the Wielback element as the earliest, foundational core in deference to the Jordanes story of migration from Scandza.Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * I think what is being missed is practical on-hands draft syntheses as we go from refs to refs. The two of you are thoroughly familiar with the sources, and therefore, rather than argue their respective merits, it would be perhaps better to take each issue, and give the editors generally a summary of how each set of texts on a theme would look when you and Krakkos write them up? I say this thinking that it's easy for a mugwumping arsehole like myself to give advice to two flailing figures in the quicksands beyond the fence. Apologies.Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll start a new drafting section to post some skeletal ideas. I believe this talk page section has been long but worthwhile.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, Nishidani. That these cultures may be described as belonging to a wider "Gothic circle" certainly warrants inclusion in this article. The tricky part is to intertwine this information with evidence from other scholarly diciplines and place it in its wider historical context, while making it a concise and readable text. Rather than changing one paragraph at a time, we should perhaps aim for larger changes, so that the text becomes as coherent as possible. The best way to prepare for such changes is probably to work them out in draft space under community guidance, as you have proposed. That will hopefully also prevent this talk page from being clogged. Krakkos (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't think we even discuss a Gothic circle in any of our specialized archaeology articles, and the concept does not seem to be all that widely cited or used? Also not sure what it actually means, or how our readers should understand it? Is it really an important concept?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * [Kazanski.] concerning sources, I am still concerned to understand the Kazanski source you added. As you know, I was accused of working against this author recently on WP . You added a long footnote in English at around that same moment, but the title of the work cited is in French (Les Goths), which would seem to be this, while the link you've added into the bibliography seems to go to a completely different work, which is actually an exhibition catalogue that does not seem to mention Kazanski? Where does the quote come from, and what time is referred to in the opening lines "lived at this time"? [OTOH for now I don't see any big reason to use this source for the Origins section. Although the methodology of starting out by trying to fit archaeology to Jordanes is criticized by other scholars, I think it is clear that detailed discussion of that methodological debate itself would be a big diversion from our mission here. (I think we can't go far beyond saying Jordanes is now seen as unreliable, though some scholars still think it might reflect some reality.) So more important is whether the conclusions (after the now standard watering down of Jordanes by changing the chronology and turning Berig's group into a small influential group rather than the transfer of a large population) are very different or new compared to other recent pro-Jordanes scholars, and they do not really seem to be?] --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One new thing I notice, just looking at this long footnote: Kazanski sources to Kolendo, who we do not discuss, an assertion that Berig was an Amal. This is not something that Jordanes says, nor something to be found in Heather or Wolfram, who both describe Berig's clan as distinct from the Amals. At first sight it seems quite an extraordinary claim, but in any case I can't see that this is something needing to be discussed in this article. Maybe on our articles for Berig or the Amals?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * [Curta]., as we have been collecting notes on sources here, just for the record I did some double checking and I don't think your description of Curta as an expert only on Slavic archaeology (above) is correct. Curta is widely cited and has managed to publish a lot concerning both archaeology and the study of textual sources of the whole of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, from late antiquity and through the middle ages. (He has written about texts in an amazing range of languages, and I see online he is credited with knowing 11.) As it happens he is originally Romanian. He is now based at the University of Florida. Perhaps your impression of him only being a Slavic expert comes from his paprt in Neglected Barbarians, which Heather wrote the afterword to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kazanski is cited for the possibility that migration of small Scandinavian clans may have played an role in the early history of the Goth and the Wielbark culture. The part about Berig, the Amals and Kolendo is only in the footnote, not in the actual article. Kazanski's suggestion on the migration of small but influential Scandinavian clans is similar to the suggestions of Wolfram, Kokowski and many others. Kazanski is a frequently cited source on early Gothic history, and his book has been considered a standard work on the Goths akin to those of Wolfram and Heather. Here is the original quotation from Kazanski in French, with the correct url and isbn:
 * Krakkos (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If the url needs fixing I have no opposition to you doing that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now fixed the url. See Talk:Goths. Krakkos (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani comments

 * At this point, it's not a good idea to keep identifying who did what (blame). Editing a difficult article should not be a zero-sum game. If valid points are made: one fixes them, punto e basta. We should try to get beyond second-guessing the pointiness behind otherwise obvious solutions: 'Gothic' is not an appropriate ethnic descriptor for either Jordanes or Ablabius, The page was alerted, it stood, so I had to remove it. The HA description of Istria's capture  in 338 runs
 * "The first incursion of the Roman Empire that can be attributed to Goths is the sack of Histria in 238"
 * There is no archaeological evidence for it being 'sacked', and the date may be too early. I.e.
 * "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)"
 * Rapid editing means responding to obvious tweak suggestions. The latter therefore must read, if one decides to retain the ref to Istria:-
 * "The first incursion of the Roman Empire attributable to Goths is the capture of Histria, reportedly in 238."
 * One doesn't need a long RfC debate or some consensus over weeks on such minutiae to intervene here. Both of you should be making concrete suggestions towards language on key points that succinctly incorporate differences in the scholarly reportage (I like Andrew's 3rd draft, but Krakkos is correct that the four cultures should be mentioned) There is no consequence of appearing to be yielding to the other's POV in simply executing a commonsensical edit. Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I have fixed the references to the works of Wolfram and Kazanski. Modifying the sentence on the Histira as Nishidani suggested seems like a good idea. On concrete suggestions for larger changes to the article, i have added some comments at User talk:Andrew Lancaster/Goths. Krakkos (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, K.Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * which four cultures? You mean the archaeological cultures mentioned by Kokowski? My concern up to this point is that I don't really think any of us have looked into the implications of this? (For example, are they just names he uses for local variants?) So maybe you are right, but I'd like to understand it.) Let me know a bit more, and based on your answer I might look into it further.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wielbark, Masłomęcz, Chernjahov and Sîntana de Mureş.
 * I think you worry the beads too much, Andrew. One sticks material like that in, and then, later tweaks to refine it. You know the story about Lord Acton, considered by many the most erudite historian of his time. He wrote almost nothing: like Casaubon in Middlemarch, he always deferred committing himself until he was sure he would be in a position to write a flawless all-comprehending narrative. Arnold Toynee in his reminiscences wrote of a Latinist who was so taken by love of the formal perfections of the Latin he mastered in the best German grammar books, that he grew increasingly intolerant of sources that failed to observe the ideal classical norms, which left him reading only 4 authors, Vergil, Ovid, Horace and Cicero. Then he realized that even they often lapsed, if read against what philology judged to be correct usage, and so . . the rest is silence.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL. OK, I'll take a bit of a look at Masłomęcz. The other three are in my draft. I'd only point out though that I'd much prefer the normal situation where editors iterate towards a better article by good-natured tweaking, à la BRD, but I do not have that possibility here. In practice this article has been helped greatly whenever editors visit who are willing to do a bit of normal BRD editing, such as yourself and Srnec in recent days. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No WP articles on the culture, in any language. The village is in the SE of Poland, between Vistula and Bug, in the Hrubieszów district. In the 70s Kokowski started the excavations. There is a very large collection of burials there. The local material culture is referred to consistently by other scholars as the Masłomęcz group of the Wielbark culture. Kokowski prefers to separate it out, seeing this as a very Gothic region, the basic idea is still that it is a newer southern extension of Wielbark. To me it seems unnecessary to mention a local variant of the Wielbark culture if we are being asked to compress, and I feel like we should not get into archaeological terminology debates in this article either? We should of course mention that southern extension though. If we want to discuss all regional names and naming disputes I fear the Chernyakhov culture would be a whole other can of worms. I really feel that our archaeology articles need to take up more weight on things like this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

The Kazanski 1991 source

 * I found a copy on Kazanski's own account on academia.edu https://www.academia.edu/2122267/M_Kazanski_Les_Goths_Ier_VIIe_s_ap_J_C_Paris_Errance_1991_148_p Maybe we can link to that? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A much newer article about Gothic origins (yes, he uses the title Origines) is here, but is not extremely detailed https://www.academia.edu/43466028/Kazanski_M_Les_origines_des_Goths Clearly Jordanes remains a guiding light, but he certainly emphasizes that certainly the Chernyakhov culture, and probably the Wielbark culture were not not only Goths.
 * On this question of diversity and mixèdness, I have also been looking more closely at the various sources citing Kokowski - for example this terminology of a Gothic circle. As far as I can see, this terminology implies a Gothic dominance but does not disallow diversity. At least concerning diversity of ancestry though it is quite clear: he believes (like Wolfram I think) that the Gothic population partly expanded because of a policy the Gothic kings had of accepted new incomers as Goths. With this in mind then, for him the question of whether there were non-Goths also in the Gothic "circle" is a bit of a moot point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice finds, Andrew. I think we should link to these rather than Google Books. The Chernyakhov culture was certainly mixed. The relationship between "Gothic and non-Gothic" peoples in this culture has been a subject of much discussion, particularly during the Cold War, when Romanian and Soviet archaeologists sought to affiliate it with Dacians and Slavs rather than Goths. Heather provides a quite thorough discussion on this in his Goths and Romans 332–489 (1994), and concluded that Goths must have played a prominent role in the culture. You have that book, right? An interesting thing about the Masłomęcz group is that it is believed to have emerged through a northward remigration from the Chernyakhov culture. Stolarek et al. (2019) made a genetic study on the people of Masłomęcz, and found that they had stronger genetic affinities to steppe populations than people of the Wielbark culture had, suggesting than there was significant mixing in the Chernyakhov culture. In time, progress in archaeogenetics may help us get a better understanding of Gothic history. I think the definite history of the Goths has yet to be told. Krakkos (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the Google books link is not an open one, academia.edu seems fine to me. Yes I have Goths and Romans and also Heather and Matthews which has some discussion of the Chernyakhov culture, and Empires and Barbarians. As I have noted though, although Heather has been pretty consistent in his positions he no longer seems to use archaeology as his main argument for a movement from Wielbark to Chernaykhov. (See my drafting page for attempts to summarize his new argumentation, which is not exactly new, but a good putting together of old talking points. He and Halsall are IMHO very useful to us because of their good skills in constructing and criticizing arguments.)
 * My reading is that archaeology as a field has moved here and there since the 1990s, maybe not in massive ways, but in ways that effect this discussion. Already in Kazanski and Heather in the 1990s we see the admission that the ability of archaeology to prove anything about exact migrations or ethnicity was being questioned. I am sure genetics will have an increasing impact but concerning the few small studies so far they just don't say much. The point you make about possible mixing is fine, but it is not easy to conclude very much from that. The "null hypothesis" for any set of three populations from the same period is that the they will form a steady gradient that matches their geographical pattern, so that mixing pattern is not a big shock of course. They almost always do. It seems people never stop mixing completely. The interesting thing is when they don't. Having said that, the DNA test should be autosomal to get good results, and not just larger numbers.
 * Relevant to our search for neat wordings on this article, you mention the prominent role of the Goths among all the other peoples they lived with. Perhaps its a useful idea. I suppose Heather, and basically everyone, accepts at least Goths had some sort of prominence and/or dominance at least in the Chernakhov culture, and those who believe they came from the north all extend that to their earlier existence further north. I do think what we have to avoid saying too strongly is that we are simply sure this was a population dominance of immigrant Goths from the north. I just can't see this is something anyone feels too confident about anymore? Would you agree that one common thread between Heather, Halsall, Kazanski, Kokowski etc etc etc is that the Goths seems to have had at least a military dominance, and, more speculatively two themes I see among some of our sources about how they built up their position are (a) that it might been by establishing control along trade routes to the north (Kazanski, Halsall) and (b) that it might have been also that their leaders were rather good at converting non-Goths into Goths (Wolfram, Kokowski)? I am not making any proposals here or arguing against anything specific, just thinking about it.
 * The way I see it, we need to select a very small number of points for a short summary, so maybe this dominance/prominence terminology helps. It is my working hypothesis here that most such discussion may end up on other articles more than this one. But has I've said before, making a good summary requires knowing a lot more than the summary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We must certainly avoid discussing the Chernyakhov culture as exclusively Gothic. It seems to be pretty much universally admitted that the Chernyakhov culture emerged in the backdrop of migration from the northwest, with the Wielbark culture and the Amber route being a likely source of that migration. Even Halsall accepts that. What is more disputed is how this migration occurred, and the relationship of these migrants with the locals. Heather and archaeologists such as Volker Bierbrauer suggest that the Goths were in a dominant position and maintained a somewhat separate identity from non-Goths. Halsall suggests that the Chernyakhov culture was dominated by a "Germanic-speaking" ruling class, but that the Dacian, Sarmatian and Roman locals could have equally identified as Gothic. This theory of Goths and locals being on such "equal footing" was very popular with Protochronists during the rule of Nicolae Ceaușescu, but has limited support today. There have probably been greater paradigm shifts in archaeology from 2010 to 2020 than there were from 1990 to 2010. For example, the entry of the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology (2008) on the Bell Beaker culture says that this culture spread into the British Isles without any migration, but more recent studies suggest that this process was accompanied by an almost complete population replacement. In a few years we will probably get a much better understanding of how the Chernyakhov culture emerged. I think a source of the controversies on this page is the fact that we are trying to summarize an incomplete whole. Having a more complete whole on which to base our summaries of disputed questions would probably make things easier. Spending endless efforts squabbling over these summaries seems like a waste of time at this point. Krakkos (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with all that I think, but remember that the normal way to simplify our task in exactly such situation is to split articles off. We do not have to imitate our sources in our sectioning. Just like them, we split our work up according to the material we have, which in our case depends on whoever wants to work on something. If something is getting difficult to fit into an article without it taking over the topic, then the solution is obvious.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Link error in bibliography
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)
 * The Wolfram reference was changed by GPinkerton a year ago upon your suggestion. GPinkerton is now blocked. This article cites the 1990 English version and the reference should have the title, url and isbn of the 1990 English version, as it originally did. This seems to be what Srnec proposed in the discussion a year ago. Perhaps Srnec could fix the Wolfram reference? Krakkos (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Krakkos I would have no problem if you are able to fix this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * I think we can remove the 1988 edition. The two places in which the 1988 edition are cited we can cite the 1990 edition instead. The pagination appears to be the same. Krakkos (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

New lead draft feedback
I think your newest lead draft on my drafting page 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)
 * Not a strong preference, but maybe "north of the Black Sea" could be improved upon. Among our authors we often see it in terms of modern countries (Ukraine, Moldava, Rumania), or in terms of rivers (between Danube and Don).
 * I feel more uncomfortable about saying "These [Adrianople] Goths would form the Visigoths". I think there is consensus now that we should be careful about making over-simple equations about the many Goths in the empire at that time. As with the first bullet I do not have an easy way to do this without adding a few words. Maybe it is justified to add a few words here though? [ADDED: For example, subsequently, Goths now established within the empire, under the command of Alaric I, became...]
 * Thanks for the feedback, Andrew. I have tweaked the draft in order to address your concerns. Per the concerns of SMcCandlish at the talk page i also added a (hopefully uncontroversial) sentence on 1st and 2nd century material. Krakkos (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I note the change to the first sentence is not really the direction I would prefer, but for me this is in a zone that would still count as an improvement, and without any obvious wrong/controversial additions. It would be best to see what thinks I believe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Material culture
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)
 * Sounds great. Just in case this involves the proposed (non-consensus) "pre-Goths" like the Wielbark culture and Przeworsk cultures - i.e. cultures which influenced the Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov culture(s), and are sometimes called Gothic - I suppose you should keep in mind the question of how to interpret the RFCs recently, and all connected discussions. My interpretation, FWIW, is that these should mainly be handled on other articles. Concerning my term "non-consensus" I have added some source notes a few hours ago here:, for example "In diesen Fragen ist sich die Forschung nicht einig." (Quite likely my comment is not relevant, or redundant, but just in case it helps.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that Steinacher is a historian specializing in the study of "barbarian" identity in late antiquity. He's not a specialist in Gothic material culture. This German-language book from him that you're citing is about "barbarians" in the Alps and along the Danube between 300 and 600 AD, which is after Gothic material culture was formed. Steinacher's emphasis on Gothic descent from Scythians and Getae are quite far off the mainstream. I think we should prioritize mainstream, relevant and specialist English-language sources. Krakkos (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, why do you keep saying things like this over and over? This is not WP policy, and your understanding of what you read seems to be almost constantly wrong, as shown in numerous examples in recent days. On Wikipedia we prioritize the use of the best secondary sources, whatever language they are in. We must also make efforts not to be driven by any small number of primary sources which represent one position in the field only. Steinacher's description of their being no field consensus matches other secondary sources. (Heather also does not claim that archaeology can prove the origins of the Goths anymore.) It is useful because recent, and asking the exact question we were discussing. This is a well-cited expert, who could hardly be more mainstream or more appropriate to use. I also don't see anything in for example Kaliff, claiming any field consensus? (Kokowski does not really write about the field in these works.) You are creating a false dilemma. There is wide agreement that the Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov groups of cultures was multi-ethnic. No one is talking about genocides. I note your constant concern, as it was on Germanic peoples, is to tell a story of warrior ethnic groups who remained unmixed everywhere they went, and whose pure ancestry can be seen by looking at which language family their language is in, but I think you are not getting this from any of these sources. It is you who is far from mainstream on that. But you are not an RS. Please stop distorting the sources and trying to mislead everyone.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion is supposed to be about Gothic material culture rather than you or me. Stop distorting what i have said, such as your ridiculous claims about "genocides" and "pure ancestry". Your attempt to change the subject of this discussion into being about me doesn't change the fact that Steinacher is a relatively weak source on Gothic material culture. Krakkos (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He very clearly is a very strong source for this type of field review comment. But OTOH, does he really disagree with some other strong source? No. This is a quote which really is talking about this question. No twisting of the words is necessary. It is not just some cherry picked words, taken out of context. You are trying to create a false impression of disagreements in the field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Great to hear that you want to improve our coverage on Gothic material culture, Carlstak. The following three papers are written by archaeologists specializing in Gothic material culture. They may be helpful:
 * Krakkos (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your valuable suggestions, fellow editors. I will keep them in mind, but please note that I'm not getting involved in any spats between you two. I will write up my stuff, publish it boldly without any discussion on this talk page, and then editors can have at it. I respect the erudition you each have, but simply request that you please don't ruin the small pleasure of an old man. I work better when the editing environment is tranquilo. It may be a couple months before I submit anything, but I wanted to serve notice and benefit from the knowledge of experts. Carlstak (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, do be aware that this entire article, from the lead on down, is presently subjected to hot dispute and a lot of redrafting. You've arrived at a dangerous moment to declare an intent to boldly inject stuff from your studies (much of which may be based on primary-research papers, which we can't use as sources for controversial claims. We need secondary sources, which for a topic this scientific-geeky probably means literature reviews and systematic reviews.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, I don't know what led you to assume that I intend to "boldly inject stuff... which may be based on primary-research papers which we can't use as sources for controversial claims." I am not a stranger to the article, nor to this talk page. What impels you to address me as if I am naïve to WP protocol, and that I don't know Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos have been arguing ad infinitum since forever?;-) My specialty is Spanish history—and one hopes you know that the Visigoths were a power in Spain for 300 years. I am quite capable of handling historical material, as you could see by looking at articles I've created. I've written a fair amount about the Visigoths in various articles concerning Spanish history. Perhaps you failed to notice that I said I intend to boldly add this content in two months. I imagine that the article will have changed substantially by then, and I'm sure that I can adapt the material to whatever the status quo is that day, knowing it is likely to change soon. Carlstak (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't play "I just don't understand" games. When you arrive at a controversial topic and post "I will write up my stuff, publish it boldly without any discussion on this talk page", you know exactly where the concerns are coming from. It should also be clear enough from what I wrote that I'm not entirely taking that seriously, and am instead offering advice on how to contribute well, in a way that will stick, namely relying on secondary sources instead of iffy primary ones.  Let's just chalk this up to mutual poor communication and move on. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to get aggressive; I didn't care for your tone, so please don't start with accusations—we've had enough of that. Carlstak (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a case where the word misunderstanding would fit pretty well. Carlstak wrote as a "regular" here and would presume most people reading were aware of the situation on the article. Would be great to have feedback from both of you on the proposals for a new lead and new Origins section?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * [Thanks for the consideration Andrew, you are right about that, at least re me]. I wish I had the mental energy at the end of these long workdays to properly assess them. Maybe tomorrow I will be rested enough to take a look. I am confident SMcCandlish, if he is available and wants to do so, can offer cogent and helpful responses—he seems quite good. Carlstak (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to get aggressive; I didn't care for your tone, so please don't start with accusations—we've had enough of that. Carlstak (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a case where the word misunderstanding would fit pretty well. Carlstak wrote as a "regular" here and would presume most people reading were aware of the situation on the article. Would be great to have feedback from both of you on the proposals for a new lead and new Origins section?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * [Thanks for the consideration Andrew, you are right about that, at least re me]. I wish I had the mental energy at the end of these long workdays to properly assess them. Maybe tomorrow I will be rested enough to take a look. I am confident SMcCandlish, if he is available and wants to do so, can offer cogent and helpful responses—he seems quite good. Carlstak (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

A potential clue in regards to Gothic origins?
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)
 * Thanks. By my understanding it is based on Y DNA like articles 20 years and it is using the now rejected methodology of assuming places where a Y haplogroup is most common today, must be the places where the haplogroup originated? (E.g., in the old days, R1b was thought to have moved from west to east.) Let's hope not. Best would be autosomal testing and as much ancient DNA comparisons as possible. Y DNA can however be interesting in specific ways. Patrilineages seem to move around more quickly and rapidly replace each other. So they are a poor representation of the population as a whole, but they are hypothetically connectable to movements of elites and their languages and technologies. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)