Talk:Goths/Archive 2

Goth map in Sweden
The map of Gotaland (Gothland in English) should be changed, it only present the modern region Gotaland, the old Gotaland was bigger and covered parts of west Svealand (Svitjod) like Värmland (Wermland) aand Gotland (The Goth Land) should be included into that map as well.

A good map, can be found here, maybe little small, http://www.scania.org/activities/council2/illrep/med/Bild02.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxpace (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Then however if this place is the origin or not for Goths is another story, but proofs are that Goths has been living there since 400 A.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxpace (talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Scandinavian origin
The whole article should be deleted. It contains wrong and outdated information about the origins of the Goths and indeed about the nature of the Goths. The section about the physical appearance of the Goths reminds of Nazi-style racism. Again, this article has no scholarly value whatsoever and should be deleted.--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.187.42 (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

--- This article is of no value. It contains plenty of false and outdated information. The stranges section is indeed the one about the physical appearance of the Goths. It may not be the intention of the author, but this clearly reminds of Nazi-style racism. The article needs to be rewritten completely. The current version is beyond repair and should be deleted urgently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfram2000 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Really, folks. There is no proof whatsoever that the Goths came from Scandinavia. Every respected scholar agrees that they came from the Eurasian steppes north of the Black sea, migrated into Scandinavia and not from Scandinavia. This is only a nationalromantic view of the Swedes. Read Stenroth, Ingmar "Myten om goterna Från antiken till romantiken". It is obvious. Motörhead Remember Me (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The myth of the origin of the Goths can be tracked back through the ages to the Roman Empire. There is absolutely nothing that supports the idea that Goths originated from Swedish territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.192.10 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion so far: An anonymous German (82.35.89.68) wants to remove any mention of a Scandinavian origin, which he has tried to do at Heruls. He claims that the only Pre-Roman Iron Age Germanic culture that was Germanic with "certainty" was the German Jastorf culture. This is a claim which would make Germany the cradle of the Germanic tribes.

He names a number of German historians and a Dane, Christensen, as evidence against the possibility of a Gothic migration from Scandinavia. So far his evidence is restricted to naming scholars and to referring to German books.

Since he claims that his assertions are identical to modern scholarship. I present a list of scholarship which does not agree with him (the authors of Encyclopedia Britannica are not included) and interestingly, they include an author that he refers to:


 * Professor Erik Nylén of Gotland has also written a lot about Scandinavian/Gotlandic Goths and even Hachmann has agreed the Nordic peoples are Goths - not only the Vistula Goths. Yurij Knysch also had some good arguments for a Nordic connection. Herwig Wolfram also sees the connection.

Hooker (1996):


 * Archaeologists put the geographical origin of the Germanic peoples in southern Scandinavia and northern Germany. There, they developed a warrior culture that was essentially democratic in character. As they migrated south and east, this democratic warrior society developed into a kingship and, as they came in contact with the Romans and Romanized Celts, they developed further aristocratic classes among the warriors and nobility. [...] The Goths originally migrated from Scandinavia and from there migrated south into Europe and east into southern Russia (some of their descendants still live in the Crimean area). The reason for this migration are unclear, but the standard, default interpretation is that they were pressured by overpopulation.

WHAT ARE THOSE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS? References please! Motörhead Remember Me (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A quote from Watkins at San José University:
 * The most notable of the eastern Germanic tribes was the Goths. There is considerable historical evidence of the origin of the Goths in Scandinavia, possibly the Baltic island of Gotland, but in the second century A.D. the Goth moved from the lower Vistula River region to the area north of the Black Sea.

Another quote from Linguistlist :
 * First, East Germanic languages (of which Gothic was one) were closer to North Germanic (i.e. Scandinavian) tongues than to West Germanic ones. Such affinity implies a close relationship, if not direct derivation. The toponymics of the island of Gotland, as well as the modern Swedish provinces of Oester- and Vaestergoetland, where the Goths had supposedly originated, also show linguistic affinity. Second. Count Oxenstierna excavated incineration burials in Oester-and Vaestergoetland that, numerous in the second and first centuries B.C. suddenly became rare after about 50 B.C. This would suggest a disappearance of a significant portion of the previous population."

Associati'', 1994.
 * Carlo Alberto Mastrelli in Volker Bierbauer et al, I Goti, Milan: Electa Lombardia, Elemond Editori
 * Graf E.C. Oxenstierna, Die Urheimat der Goten. Leipzig, Mannus-Buecherei 73, 1945 (later printed in 1948).

Another quote :


 * Musset (a French scholar, my note) placed their Urheimat (the Germanic peoples, my note) in southern Scandinavia in the late Bronze Age, an area where no pre-Germanic linguistic substratum had been found (p. 4). From there some Germanic tribes spread along the Baltic coast, toward the Oder. Others followed the coast of the North Sea, toward the Weser. By 1000 BC, according to Musset, German habitat stretched from the Ems to central Pomerania (Demougeot dated their appearance in Pomerania much later, from 400 BC [ Demougeot, 1969, 45]. If we follow Musset, by 800 BC Germans reached Westphalia in the West and Vistula in the East. And 300 years later they could be found on the lower Rhine, in Thuringia and Lower Sileasia (Musset, I, 4)."

A list of modern scholarship who support Jordanes, from Linguistlist

the Eurasian Steppe'', London: Macmillan, 2000.
 * Bell-Fialkoff, A., ''The Role of Migration in the History of

Gegenwart'', Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1998.
 * Findeisen, Joerg-Peter, ''Schweden - Von den Anfaengen bis zur

Stockholm, Atlantis, 1993.
 * Hermodsson, Lars, Goterna - ett krigafolk och dess bibel ,

kontinenten'', Skara: Vaestergoetlands museums skriftserie nr 30, 2000.
 * Nordgren, I., Goterkällan - om goterna i Norden och på

skottkungar - Sveriges bysantiska arv'', Göteborg: Tre böcker, 1994.
 * Rodin, L. - Lindblom, V. - Klang, K., ''Gudaträd och västgötska


 * Schaetze der Ostgoten, Stuttgart: Theiss, 1995.

und Suedosteuropa - Vortraege beim Gotensymposion im Statens Historiska Museum'', Stockholm 1970.
 * ''Studia Gotica - Die eisenzeitlichen Verbindungen zwischen Schweden


 * Tacitus, Germania, (with introduction and commentary by J.B. Rives),Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.

Other works: Associati, 1994.--Wiglaf 23:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Kaliff, Anders. 2001. Gothic Connections. Contacts between eastern Scandinavia and the southern Baltic coast 1000 BC – 500 AD.
 * Carlo Alberto Mastrelli in Volker Bierbauer et al, I Goti, Milan: Electa Lombardia, Elemond Editori


 * [Comment below originally added in the middle of Wiglaf's comment above and replying to the paragraph: Professor Erik Nylén of Gotland has also written a lot about Scandinavian/Gotlandic Goths and even Hachmann has agreed the Nordic peoples are Goths - not only the Vistula Goths. Yurij Knysch also had some good arguments for a Nordic connection. Herwig Wolfram also sees the connection.:]


 * Unfortunately, the above text is not correct. Rolf Hachmann (1970) does not agree that the Nordic people are Goths. This is a mis-interpretation of his work. My teacher Herwig Wolfram does fully agree that the Goths, or better the Wielbark culture of which the Goths were possible a constituent part did not come from Sweden or any other place, but that the Wielbark culture developed authochtonously in the Vistula region. Yurij Knysch who appeared for a while on some discussion fora is not a historian and his view should not be taken as supportive evidence. Instead, the author of this terrible article should read the work by V. Bierbrauer on the archaeology of the Wielbark culture and the Goths and consult the supportive historical argumentation by authors such as Th. Burns, H. Wolfram and recently A. Soeby-Christensen. The article is packed with historical mistakes, distortions and fantasy that it needs substantial revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.91.136 (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2006


 * You appear very enthusiastic about their non-Scandinavian-ness. Please be constructive and add arguments with references (of course). Asserting that the Scandinavian origin is "widely rejected" is so contradicted by the authors referred to in the article that your addition is frankly a blatant lie. It is also interesting that the statement you anonymously claim is wrong is made by Ingmar Nordgren and signed with his own name. Ingmar Nordgren is authoritative enough on the matter to have his work translated into English (The Well-Spring of the Goths).--Berig 05:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. Checking your overall edits, you seem to be primarily interested in arguing for Continental origins for Germanic tribes and in rejecting Scandinavian connections (I hope it has nothing to do with your being Suiss).--Berig 12:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there's no chance at all that Scandinavians simply sprang up de novo, in autochthonous manner. Surely we're all past that and won't be revising all of the rest of Wikipedia to have Homo sapiens appear first in Scandinavia. Since this is something I've been interested in professionally for 30 years, let me say that it is generally agreed that ALL Scandinvanians come from a small founding population (Y chromosome R1a-) at around 6000 BP. Denmark, surprisingly, has few longterm inhabitants before the rapid advance of the Neolithic, around 6000BP, probably 2000 years or less after the arising of blue eyes. The original founding population of blue eyed people come from the area between Pskov/root of the Finnish peninsula and could be given any number of tribal names - but ALL blue-eyed people descend from those people and obviously, the brown alleles didn't exactly make it to Sweden and Norway in any great numbers until very recently (as in the last 100 years, even last 40 years). Herwig Wolfram is not the only person drawing the intelligent conclusions noted above by an anonymous editor. The Wielbark culture, as a contiguous/related culture to the Hallstatt peoples seems indisputable. The upper Vistula would be an appropriate place for the River-Cultures (which were more hierarchical and specialized in occupation) to meet the Blue-Eyed Sea People (whose sea-going skills were developing rapidly and whose eventual history is definitely well known). But, the PIE root G~T, (Got, Gut, Gots, Goth, etc) PRECEDES the habitation of Sweden. So this whole article needs major revision - starting with taking out that map of Sweden as the founding place of the Goths. The Got/Gots/Goth people were very very enterprising and wonderful - and they were both part of a pre-existing family of Swedes as well as closely related to their mainland family (why wouldn't they be?). Upper Vistula is a much better guess, genetically, linguistically, culturally etc. BTW, the other interesting fact about the Vistula hypothesis is that they were river-boating people with several different methods of boat-building. Someone had to build the boats, you know. If evidence can be found that the sound sequence Got/Gut/Goth/Guth/Gutz etc was not in use until people arrived in Scandinavia - then that idea might have a go. But that evidence simply isn't there; all the evidence points to the opposite. I'm nearly in the mood to take that map out at the very least. I think this discussion has gone on long enough and that enough has been said against the Swedish hypothesis. There are no citations to support the map.LeValley 03:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Goths and Scandinavia
The explanation for Jordanes' (and modern researchers') association between Goths and Scandinavia may be due to two reasons. Modern authors have also consulted old English texts to associate them with Scandianvia. It is possible that Jordanes derives the Goths from Ptolemy's (ca 100 AD) Go(u)tais, most likely identical to the Cwens (or Quæns, "the Kings") somewhere in Scandinavia; presumably a hunter-gathering group. Unfortunately, althought intresting, the essential sources on this group is Norse sagas. Besides being good magicians, they spend all their time on the battle-field fighting christianity. Unfortunately, this is not very much of scientific value and the Goths were actually one of the first groups adopting christianity. Scandinavia, in particular Sweden where you claim being the Gothic resident, was one of the last regions in Europe adopting Christianity! Secondly but also intrestingly; names in Jordanes' Getica does also occure in the english poem Beowulf; but it is not clear whether they refers to Scandinavian Goths, or whether the poem actually refers to Goths in Central Europe. Note that the Slavic tribes' historical existence are very similar to the Gothic realm. Thus, I don't think it is a good idea to state that the Goths were actually Swedes. Just my cents. (83.226.130.159 10:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC))


 * See Gothicism and Swedish Gothicism


 * 1) Jordanes wrote in the 6th century, when there was hardly any Old English literature.
 * 2) I don't see how you can connect the Goutai with the Quens.
 * 3) Quen has no such etymology that I have heard of. It is usually connected with a word for "woman".
 * 4) The time when the Goths are believed to have migrated vary from the 7th century BC to the 1st century AD, so it is not relevant to discuss whether they were ethnic Swedes and neither does the article.--Wiglaf 16:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This consideration is covered by some authors (See e.g. The Goths; Peter Heather; 1996) because Ptolemy lists Goutais in his geographical tables which have been compared with Two voyagers at the court of king Alfred : the ventures of Ohthere and Wulfstan .... Peter proposed to literary distinguish and divide Goths into Goths and Scandinavian Goths, where Sc. G. sometimes refers to Goutais, sometimes to Geates. Note that Geates may not be "Scandinavian" at all, because Beowulf don't locate them geographically so the Scandinavian "Goths" merely refers to Goutais.


 * I suggest that you don't take Heather's hypotheses for facts as he has his own ideas. Read some other authors to get a more balanced view.--Wiglaf 21:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, he presents an idea due to the (most likely) misassociation, because the Goths after 6th century introduced the christianity and Scandinavia or Sweden has nothing to do with this. (83.226.130.159 21:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC))
 * The article does not claim so either. The article points out Sweden as the traditional original homeland of the Goths which was long before the 6th century.--Wiglaf 21:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybee not, maybee, but it states that W/W culture have "strong influences" with Southern Scandinavia, when actually the article it refers to state there is only vague resamblence. Secondly, note that high-mounds were before something considered to be possible "Gothic" related. (83.226.130.159 00:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC))
 * You apparently have not read the second link which states that the similarities may be due to long-term contacts. Archaelogists consider the WW culture to be similar to the Scandinavian culture. Moreover, I have a few questions for you:


 * 1) why do you claim that the article only states a vague resamblence, when it plainly does not? It states that it is difficult to equate archaeological culture with ethnicity, and I hope you're familiar with this problem
 * 2) from where do you pick up the high mound argument? Burial customs varied, even in Scandinavia, and the mound tradition is thousands of years older.--Wiglaf 07:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I simply suggest to write a more neutral article, perhaps moving the large part of the W/W culture-interpretation to its own article. It shall also be stated here on this talk-page that some scholars usually translate Scythia into Gothia to describe the early Romano-Gothic interactions; at least this article refers to this interaction in terms of Goths.


 * We can also mention that Gotia or Goths is by very early cartographists (ca 100 AD) associated with an island in Northen Europe, the Fenno-Scandia, and that there have been a long tradition to literary associate for example historical-Gotland, since modern time furthermore associated with present-Gotland, to extend the Scandinavian history beyond their own historical records, and that individuals such as Wulfila might also have done something similar when he derives his own history as beeing Goth. (Wulfila refers to records describing the Goths as pagan, but does not mention this, whereas he self derives his history as being one of the first Christian Europeans.) (83.226.130.159 19:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Wiglaf wrote:

''I don't think so. He chose the arguments and I showed the problems of those arguments. If it was well-written and sound I would hardly succeed in doing so, would I?''

No you didn't. All you really did was attack him without even bothering to read his well researched papers. If you had, you would have known that he is already well aware of all these outdated "Germanist" sources, most of which do not take the archaeological record into account:


 * Hi JDP, I see that you have finally got yourself a username :-). Why are you so angry? In order to explain to you I will quote my criticism. I consent that I have only read the piece that you (?) quoted from him.


 * 1) he limits the time period to 100BC-100AD, consciously omitting the time prior to this. Why? The preceeding period probably does not fit his opinions.
 * 2) he proposes that they only came from the Continent. Where is his "evidence" for that? His only evidence is claiming that there is no "evidence" for the Scandinavian origin (NOTE: he has excluded the period prior to 100BC). Then, he uses the logic fallacy "As there is not 100% evidence for theory A, this proves that theory B is right" (for which there is no proof either, by the way). Non-scholars may fall for it, though, but I consider it to be spurious scholarship.
 * 3) I rarely see serious scholars use the term "evidence". Most academically trained people are wary of such terminology.
 * 4) He asserts his point of view and ignores the implications (did the Goths come from Germany or was Poland the cradle of the Germanic languages?).
 * 5) He asserts what fits his own ideas and avoids discussing the problems. That impresses very few scholars. --Wiglaf 17:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Since many "Germanist" historians practically avoid the issue of archaeology altogether, Peter Heather's The Goths (1996) was mainly used in reconstructing the historical scenarios as described by Jordanes. Heather paraphrases the earlier work established by German authors like Hachmann who discovered that a "Gotho-Gepedian" culture more likely originated from northern Continental Europe rather than southern Sweden (Heather 1996, 14)." 


 * If you settle in a new territory, perhaps as an aristocracy, you hardly bring the pottery with you, do you? That is why archaeologists normally do not speculate about ethnicity.--Wiglaf 17:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is the reason why Heather's book is valuable for researchers, and why he chose it before others available back then. Also, notice that Hachmann is mentioned, and it is clearly said that he does not propose a Scandinavian origin but a continental one.


 * He proposes, he hardly proves such an origin, right?--Wiglaf 17:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wiglaf wrote:

Well, if Heather hypothesizes that the Goths could not have had a Scandinavian origin, he does so without evidence.

On the contrary, he does so relying on archaeological evidence.


 * I reiterate that few archaeologists speculate on ethnicity and language in connection with archaeological cultures. Moreover, it is spurious to call a certain material continuity "evidence" concerning non-material issues such as language and ethnicity. Have you ever heard of substrata?--Wiglaf 17:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wiglaf wrote:

Neither Encarta, Encyclopedia Britannica nor the BBC consider Heather's speculations to be worth mentioning.

I am not sure what Encycopledia Britannica says about this issue because I do not have the latest edition right at hand now, and the online edition is not for public view:

"Member of a Germanic people whose two branches, the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths, for centuries harassed the Roman Empire. According to their own legend, reported by the mid-6th-century Gothic historian Jordanes, the Goths originated in southern Scandinavia and crossed in three ships under their king Berig to the southern shore of the Baltic Sea, where they settled…"

That's all you can read without becoming a member, and notice that this excerpt is talking about LEGEND, not facts. If you have access to the whole article maybe you can tell us what their opinion is regarding the validity of such legends.

In any event, sometimes it takes a while for encyclopedias to "catch up" with modern scholarship. Brockhaus Encyclopedia, for example, no longer maintains the supposed Scandinavian origin theory. I suppose other encyclopedias will "catch up" sooner or later. --JDP 17:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Did you know that many modern scholars suggest that Jordanes account has a foundation in real events? See the list above.--Wiglaf 17:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)



Not "angry", but rather amused. By the way, I am not the "anonymous German" you were referring to earlier. That's obviously another person who also has noticed that there is something "strange" going on with this article. It very suspiciously refuses to take note of well respected sources that point otherwise, even to the point of trying to dismiss a widely acknowledged writer like Heather, who happens to be a respected Oxford professor of History.


 * If you find that objectionable, I will include those authorities. No problem.--Wiglaf 20:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In order to explain to you I will quote my criticism.

I am already aware of your "criticism", but most of it can hardly be considered major opposition. You keep bringing up moot points, most of which Anctil and others are already well aware of, but they still prove or deny nothing.


 * If Anctil was aware of those moot points, why did he not consent that his arguments had problems?--Wiglaf 20:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anctil gives more importance to archaeology -and rightly so- than "Germanist" speculations. According to Anctil(who bases his conclusions mostly on Heather's), there is no archaeological evidence suggesting a Scandinavian origin of the Goths that is earlier than the sites found in Poland, therefore the most logical conclusion is that such a culture originated on the continent, and later "exported" some aspects of its culture to Scandinavia. Some Scandinavians -whether "aristocrats", or "peasants", or whatever- among them does not translate into "Goths = Scandinavians".


 * So you don't like the equation Goths=Scandinavians? I suspected as much. AFAIK, very few people have ever suggested that the Goths were "pure" Scandinavians. If you are aware of the history of known population movements, such as the Anglo-Saxons, you may know that immigrating rulers usually assimilate parts of the earlier populations. Genetic testing has shown that the Angles and the Saxons assimilated considerable portions of the Celts.--Wiglaf 20:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And "point" 3 is rather strange. You have "rarely" seen scholars use the term "evidence"? Even the authors of some of your very own links use it frequently.


 * I consent that I was thinking of my own specialty, Cognitive Science, where positivist arguments of proof is considered to be obsolete, due to the lack of one-to-one equivalence between reality outside people and the concepts inside people.--Wiglaf 20:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''If you settle in a new territory, perhaps as an aristocracy, you hardly bring the pottery with you, do you? That is why archaeologists normally do not speculate about ethnicity''

That's funny because even the author of one of your links does that. Despite claiming that it is difficult to put ethnic origins on "archaeologically defined cultures", he keeps assuming and asserting -without providing any clear explanations- the supposedly Scandinavian origin of the Goths and "Gepidae". I guess that if we can pretend to rule out Anctil on such rather "loose" premises we can also safely discard good ol' Tadeusz Makiewicz as a "pseudo-scholar" as well.


 * I will have to remind you that you assertively rule out a Scandinavian background for the Goths, even though, an archeologists would hardly do so, since they know that population movements are hard to pinpoint archeologically.--Wiglaf 20:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He proposes, he hardly proves such an origin, right?

In Hachmann's times there probably still wasn't enough archaeological evidence for him to fully prove it. By Heather's times things were a bit different, as there now was much more archaeological data.


 * Even very probable invasions such as the Battle-axe people are ruled out as "cultural diffusion", by archaeologists. I don't see how you could arrive at such facts through archaeology. Moreover, there is plenty of archaeological data supporting a Scandinavian immigration before the 1st centry BC. See Kaliff's dissertation.--Wiglaf 20:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''I reiterate that few archaeologists speculate on ethnicity and language in connection with archaeological cultures. Moreover, it is spurious to call material continuity evidence concerting non-material issues such as language and ethnicity''

Funny because that's what Tadeusz Makiewicz does -whether wittingly or unwittingly, I am not sure- in such passages as:

"Recent archaeological research and lengthy debate on this subject have, however, established that the Wielbark Culture did not simply come into being as a result of the arrival of tribes of Scandinavian Goths in Pomerania."

"Wielbark communities comprised mostly members of tribes already settled in this area with the addition of Scandinavian migrants, who maybe arrived here in small groups."

"The Wielbark Culture appears to have been composed of Scandinavian Goths and Gepidae as well as of earlier local communities - the Venedi and Rugii."

He certainly seems to be very at ease assigning geographical/cultural origins to different groups, doesn't he? Unfortunately he forgot to clearly explain why such associations seem so "clear" to him.


 * Population groups, generally speaking, yes. However, he acknowledges that it is impossible to rule out or confirm the immigration of smaller groups. Smaller groups that may have arrived as rulers.--Wiglaf 20:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''You claim that it will be catching up. Do you know that many modern scholars claim that Jordanes account has some truth in it? See the list above''

Many in that list are outdated sources, published before Heather's or Christensen's works. --JDP 21:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Some of the books are from 2000 and 2001, and this list was compiled in 2002. Moreover, in a few weeks the book "The Well Spring of the Goths" by Nordgren is going to be published in the US. 667 pages, and important enough to be translated into English.--Wiglaf 20:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous contributor wrote:

''Andrzej Kokowski is a good friend of mine and we worked together on some exhibitions about Vandals and Goths in the past. He certainly is the leading Polish expert on Wielbark archaeology and you would hear from him nothing but that the Wielbark culture is indigenous to the Vistula region. He allows for some Scandinavian influence but always argues that the Wielbark-Goths did not come from Scandinavia.''

Thank you for that information. So it seems Kokowski has rather different views than Tadeusz Makiewicz, who very obviously believes the Goths and "Gepidae" to be "foreign" elements to the earlier local peoples of Poland.

I take it that you must be a scholar on the subject yourself or something to that effect? I mean, you said that you "worked" with him on some exhibitions. --JDP 21:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The origin of the Goths in Scandinavia is, as alreadey mentioned, quite dubious. Besides Christensen and Heather cf. Volker Bierbrauer in Frühmittelalterliche Studien 28, pp. 51ff. Jordanes presents us a constructed history, the origin in Scandinavia is meant as a topos.

I agree that the Scandinavian origin of the Goths is a controversial issue. However, I do not agree that "the stance that [Swedish] historians take in the issue is an ideological symbol". To me, this somehow implies that those who favor the Scandinavian origin do so for nationalist reasons. It may be the case for some, but hardly for most. KarlXII 13:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All the germanic cultures came from Scandinavia, the Goths are a progressive phenomena, the goths are a mixture with many others cultural manifestations from early iron age in northern poland, they have many links with southern Sweden but are not the same culture, the swedish goths are a portion of population isolated in their original homeland with a few links with the historically goths but are not the same, the Goths are a Swedish origin culture but with many mixtures from another cultures swedish just in their origin

equitatus gothorum
I am looking for references to explain the 19th century portrayal of Goths as a "horse people" with a strong cavalry etc. Is this based on Jordanes or other early sources? The Fornaldursagas? Is it connected with a confusion of Huns and Goths during the Middle Ages? What is the opinion of contemporary historians, did the Goths learn horsemanship from the Alans or Huns? dab (&#5839;) 11:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the following: Ammianus Marcellinus; Sir Charles Oman : Adrianopol 378 (from Geofrey Regan book) CristianChirita 16:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"...or better Gothones"
Why in the archaeology section are we reading "In Poland, the material culture associated with these Goths (or better Gothones)..." Gothones, eh. Why "better" Gothones? Or why not "Guthones"? "Gothones" gets about 470 Google hits. If it were better, why haven't we been saying "Gothones"? all along? It sounds a little affected in English, to be honest. May we get rid of "Gothones"? --Wetman 15:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It has been around for so long that I have got used to it. I remove it since it really serves no purpose.--Wiglaf 15:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I was beginning to think I must have been out sick the day they gave out the vocabulary sheets... --Wetman 17:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Council of Basel?
What is the actuality behind this, if any?
 * "This claim of Gothic origins led to a clash with the Swedish delegation at the Council of Basel, 1434, during which the Swedish delegation argued with the Spanish about who among them were the true Goths. The Spaniards argued that it was better to be descended from the heroic Visigoths than from stay-at-homers."

Can anyone with a brief quote perhaps make good history out of this? (Query repeated at Talk:Council of Basel) --00:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a fairly often mentioned incident, but unfortunately, I have only one reference at hand, at the moment - Kaliff, Anders: Gothic Connections. Contacts between eastern Scandinavia and the southern Baltic coast 1000 BC – 500 AD. 2001.--Wiglaf 06:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The point of the incident, if it was historical, which is to say reported at the time of the Council of Basel, 1424, is only in fixing 15th-century perceptions of what "Gothic" meant. Actual Gothic connections in the late first millennium are an utterly separate question. Can anyone see why this is so? --Wetman 10:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)4


 * Be very cautious about the rewriting of history here. The objective of the Council was to consolidate Papal Supremacy in the wake of the Council of Constance, where Pierre d'Ailly and Jean Gerson hatched a plan to invert the power structure of the Concilium, given the 5 Kings could not get on with each other, resulting in the Papal Schism. An interregnum followed to placate the traditionalists in the Roman Famiglias, in the Papacy of Martin V, which was followed by a radical divergency from the Petrine Line in the election of the Venetian (and therefore Marcine) Gabriele Condulmer as Eugenius IV. ::The second half of the original plan was then unveiled, in the completion of the theology of Jan van Ruusbroec (On the Spiritual Tabernacle, which consolidated the doctrine of the Eucharist and would become the foundation of Windesheim and nascent Protestantism) recommended by Gerson, the full quadrivium support coming from two members of d'Ailly's management team, the young Jan van Eyck and Guillaume Dufay, at Constance, although they would not produce their work until the roll-out of the change under Eugenius in the ealry 1430s.
 * The theme has a very non-academic objective, therefore, and although likely true, simply rewrites history, as the Ostrogoths followed on the heels of the Visigoths writing an end to Roman Imperial power. Their stem clans, the Goths, pretty much remained in Central Eastern Europe, and, weakened by the loss of large numbers of the tribes, would soon be subsumed in Ruric's Viking Kiev Empire.
 * Bibliography:
 * ISBN 078 90 209 6788 3, van Ruysbroec, Jan, Van den geestelijken tabernakel, ed Professor Thom Mertens (Dean of the Ruysbroec speciality school at Antwerp University), Lannos Brepolis, 2006
 * ISBN 0-226-31032-9 Guenée, Bernard (Professor of History, Sorbonne), Between Church and State, The Lives of Four French Prelates in the Late Middle Ages, Chicago UP 1987, p199
 * The Fountain of Life, Jan van Eyck, Prado Art Gallery
 * The Mystic Lamb, Jan van Eyck, St Navo''s Cathedral, Ghent
 * ISBN 0-674-01363-8 Wright, Craig (Professor of the History of Music, Yale), The Maze and the Warrior, Symbols in Architecture, Theology and Music, Harvard UP, 2001

It was historical, as far as I know ! Even tradtionally, we have been told these things by the older generation. There will always be difference in perceptions and the 15th century is no exception to the rule. Gothic Hero 05:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Tacitus, "Mare Suebicum"
The phrase Mare Suebicum is resoundingly and repeatedly suppressed, and the reader is given instead only the modern interpretation. ("Baltic Sea" may in fact be correct.) Could someone with a basic grasp of the rules of presenting historical evidence fix this please? --Wetman 10:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Goth should redirect here
I think the term Goth should point foremost to this article, not to the subculture as it does now. This would require changing a vast amount of links, though. Any suggestions? Rain74 11:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not Accurate
Although this article makes good use of citations (in comparison to others on wikipedia) there is still a few mistakes in areas which citation is lacking. I don't have time right now, but i will fix them in the near future. Cheers, MedievalScholar 19:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rawe edit
The following destroyed the map. Can it be re-edited for the article? "The red area and in the traditional province of Ostrogothia, in Sweden, archaeological evidence shows that there was a general depopulation during this period. The settlement in today's Poland probably corresponds to the introduction of Scandinavian burial traditions, such as the stone circles and the stelae, which indicates that the early Goths preferred to bury their dead according to Scandinavian traditions. The Polish archaeologist Tomasz Skorupka states that a migration from Scandinavia is regarded as a matter of certainty:" --Wetman 18:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A citation problem
"In Sweden, archaeological evidence shows that there was a general depopulation during this period". I am suspicious of this. I am not personally aware of such a theory. The cited source is quite possibly obsolete, as it was published in 1945. The Iron Age settlement archaeology in Sweden has developed with giant leaps during the recent decades, and the depopulation hypotheses have been largely refuted at least in some regions. It is not unlikely that some interpretations made by Count Oxenstierna regarding Östergötland have been overruled. Please find out a more recent and convincing source, maybe some book of Anders Kaliff?--217.112.242.181 10:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * please help? dab (&#5839;) 11:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would love to. Unfortunately, I am living nowhere near a decent archaeological library right now, and I am not even a Swede=).--217.112.242.181 11:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting objection. You presuppose that the source is obsolete but you have no other sources to back this up with. Only your personal suspicion that it is possibly obsolete. I don't think that this is a valid objection to the reference.--Berig 14:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. The problem with your reasoning is that archaeology is not like other disciplines where you can redo the study. When you have excavated a "vacated village", you can't do the excavation again to show that it was not vacated. What can be changed is the interpretation of the finds and that is what you refer to. What happened after the great dislocations of populations (Germans and Slavs who changed places in Poland and the Czeck Republic) was that the cultural diffusion school became popular. This school assumes that there was little or no migrations, and instead there was a diffusion of languages and objects. You appear to say that Oxentierna's study is obsolete because of its date. This probably means that you assume that it belongs to the demic diffusion school. As you can see, I can only guess at your objections, because you did not explain them properly. I find your objections POV and remove your tag, until you have provided sources that say otherwise.--Berig 13:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you guessed wrong, but you are forgiven. But, really, you must understand that archaeological research gets old. As far as I know, Iron Age settlement site archaeology in Sweden had barely started when Count Oxenstierna wrote his thesis. At least the research material is nowadays much bigger and much more representative! In this field, the interpretations made in the 1940´s are not very trustful if not confirmed in the recent research. Anders Kaliff, a leading expert of Ostrogothian archaelogy, does not mention the population decline at all in his book Gothic Connections, although he believes in a limited Gothic migration from Sweden to Poland. Limited migration, of course, would not be recognisable in the settlement site data.


 * I have read many other books relevant to this subject as well, and I cannot remember any of them making any claims of the said populaton decline. Unfortunately I cannot provide more sources right now, but I think I have justified my objection.--217.112.249.156 18:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Genetics
I have removed the following section, which looks like original research. It does not seem worthwile to keep in the article for the following reason: If the comparison between modern Swedes and modern Spaniards is to say anything about the number of Spaniards patrilineally descended from Swedish Goths, the section has to describe the distribution of haplogroups prior to the Gothic invasion and exclude other genetic contributions:


 * Since their early migrations from northern Europe, the Goths had mixed with numerous other nations, whether Oksywie culture, Zarubintsy culture, Sarmatians, Dacians, etc. Consequently there were probably few "pure blooded" Goths at the time when they invaded Spain.


 * It should consequently be difficult to find any larger Germanic genetic influx in Spain. The following shows the relative percentages of the Swedish and German populations contributed by the various Y chromosone haplogroups - I Hg (42 v 19%), R1b (22v 44%), R1a (19 v 12%). Hence any chromosone signature related to the Goths would be lost in the genetic noise associated with the ancestral Germanic populations. Further when looking at Spain one finds the I & R1a Hg contents dropping away to only 8 & 2% respectively. Whilst it would be tempting to set an upper limit of 10% of Spain's population being paternally descended from Swedish Goths, this calculation assumes that the ancestral Spanish population had no prior R1a Hg content before the arrival of the Goths.

I don't think it gives any valuable information whatsoever as the number of Spaniards with Swedish haplotypes could be anything from 0% to 10%. It is misdirected original research, IMHO.--Berig 12:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree: I was going to remove it myself, but you preceded me.--Aldux 12:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. This section does not give us any important and relevant information about Goths (to sum it up: "the Spaniards may have some Scandinavian genes or maybe not"). Even if it weren't original research it's not conclusive enough to be useful. Friendly Neighbour 12:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of work done recently with genetics and ancient peoples. Many articles talk about it .. Anglo-Saxons, Huns.. we should not discount the ongoing genetics research which is new, often inconclusive, but interesting and cutting edge. This particular paragraph looks accurate (who would.. could .. make it up?) but it is unsourced. If there was a source we could summarize the findings, removing the biology class gobblygook. But we need a source to attribute. I plan on reading a recent survey on the Goths soon and will keep an eye out for more info. No doubt the Goths origins is a complex and controversial disucussion. -- Stbalbach 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
In the article (specifically under the history sub title) it says "you're all lying" can someone delete it.69.236.181.245 05:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted this very vandalism about eight hours before you wrote the above comment. I do not understand how you can still see it unless you see a version from your browser cache. Try deleting it (I mean the cache not the article!). Friendly Neighbour 07:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Small Text

Origins of Goths
I think the article is well writen and a huge work. It represents one angle on the Gothic migration which describes the migration from Goths from Scanza down the vistula and eventually ends up settled at the eastern Balkans as a treaty with Emperor Valens in 376.

What I think most people are questioning about this article is that this theory of migration is under criticism from alot of sides and the archeological founds does not prove that this migration has existed but neither do they deny it. The current research on the field do question this and what they emphasize is that a new research is to be done without having "getica" as a valid source because its simply too unrealiable. The problem is we know that there are alot of nonesense in "getica" like reports of romans at the battle of troy and Amazons. This damage the value of the "getica" because we know some parts of its are deliberatly lies and some parts of it "might" be true. But have do way to seperate the lies from the truths in getica without speculating.

To mention some of the writers which I have studied some reject and other agrees with this "long migration of the goths".

Wolfram, Wenskus, Walther Pohl Argues for the migration and origin of the Goths in Scandinavia. And they all use Getica to do this. Heather do no think highly of Getica. But he do belive that the Migration can be proved from studying the Archeological founds down the Vistula.

Goffart, Guy Hallsall and Patrick Armory argues for a new research needs to be done and they all deny that "getica" can be used as source. Further more they question the Archeological data available. As mentioned in the Article the Wielbark and cernjachov cultures. Guy Halsall concludes that the evidence is simply not there to prove the Migration and the link between the Wielbark and cernjachov as a migration from Scanza down to the east balkans

Walter Goffart disagrees with Wolframs ideas of the migration and goths on many points. He deny the idea of "core of traditions" and the thought the the Goths could have originated in Scandinavia and move all the way down the vistula as "stämme". He reject the entire notion of a gothic history and that we cannot say anything about the goths untill 376, everything before is pure imagination. To quote Goffart about the migration of goths:

So in short. As to whether or not the Goths origined from Scandinavia is questionable. It cant be denied but neither confirmed. The argumentation of the field of scientist are still going strong and what most want is a new research with the starting point "That no barbarian migration existed unless it can be proven from archeological founds" Problem with todays archeological founds is that they are made with "getica" in the back of the head. So you find what you want to find. The artefacts from the Wielbark area in Cernajachov are seen as proof of the migration but the founds of Cernjachov artefacts in the Wielbark area is seen as a sign of trade. But however, cant it be possible that the wielbark artefacts in Cernjachov are sign of trades and not proof of the migration? The vistuale was one of the biggest trading areas anyhow.

As to the article, I dont think its neccesary to change anything, perhaps add a section about the ongoing discussion and the Heavy critisicm of Getica and the current archealogical findings. But again it depends what View you have on the barbarian migration. I like how the article stress that story is taken from Jordannes so people can decide wether they see Getica as a reliant source.

Ive not created a profile but Im a danish history student at the university of Copenhagen. My course is exactly about this subject and my Teacher is "Arne Søbe Christensen" who has been mentioned aswell and who self question wether the goths originated in Scandinavia. Keep up the good work and the discussion :)

Further reading I recommend: Noble, Thomas (2006) From roman provinces to medieval kingdoms" . Its a collection of different articles from Wolfram to goffart about the Goths. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.164.83.90 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC).


 * This is an excellent comment - thanks. Another author that disagrees with the standard "out of Scandinavia" theory is Michael Kulikowski in his latest 2006 book Rome's Gothic Wars - there seems to be a lot of very good reasons to doubt the evidence of a Scandinavian origin. This article could be a historiography article, similar to Decline of the Roman Empire, which lists various points of view. -- Stbalbach 14:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It will inevitably turn into such an article in the long run. Considering how unlikely some find the crossing of the Baltic sea, it is amazing how little credit is given to the sea-faring abilities of Iron Age Scandinavians ;-).--Berig 08:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Andrzej Kokowski "Archäologie der Goten" (1999) they probably used the same route as all other migrations across the Baltic: Scania <-> Bornholm <-> Middle Pomerania which means one day sailing only on both sides of Bornholm. This would mean that landing in the mouth of Vistula could be a mistake (or oversimplification) of Jordanes. The interesting thing is that only one of many burial sites with stone rings - of typical Scandinavian provenience - was found close to the sea shore. And it is not in the vicinity of Vistula mouth but close to the mouth of Słupia (Stolpe) which is directly downwind from... Bornholm with the prevailing north-western winds (see this Google Map with the sole coastal stone ring site marked). All the other stone rings are in the areas in the lake district which was not inhabited for some time before the Scandinavian arrival. This is why Kokowski believes that the new tribe from Scandinavia (Goths) was invited by the tribes (possibly earlier immigrants related to the new arrivals) living around Vistula moth and Baltic shore, (Gepides ?) to create a buffer zone between them and the Przeworsk culture (most probably Vandals and their allies). It would seem they moved in by the shortest route and Vistula mouth became important only later when they evacuated the lake district to invade territories along both the Bug rivers joining Baltic and Black Sea areas (BTW the name Bug is probably of Vandal origin) which could explain the Jordanes narrative. So much for the non-Scandinavian origin. Friendly Neighbour 08:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe there should be a section on why the crossing of the Baltic sea is felt to be so unlikely by some. The grounds for scepticism should be thoroughly explained, because I am very curious about them myself. The only reason that I know of, so far, is that we should be sceptical of the Getica, which is not a very convincing argument, IMHO. It is like saying "either this source tells the truth or it lies, and since it is not entirely reliable, it probably lies", which is a very strong claim.--Berig 09:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all wanna thank the one putting my post in the right place and Im the same danish student here (need to make and account). I think what most people find dangerous about "getica" is its build around alot of arguments who jordannes couldnt have possible known. To present some of the ones I read about. First of all its the entire argumentation by modern scholars who think highly of getica particular Wolfram, who question the idea that a "stämme" bound by ties of blood originates(my english really lacks a better description, I mean a "volk" with genetic and blood bounds) from scandinavic and move too the balkans. But what wolfram do believe in is that the "nuclei of tradition" or an Elite migrating all the way down to the black sea and eventually ending up as we all know inside the roman empire. This is what Wolfram believes. None believes that the Goths all are a blond bunch of scandinavians migrating in a tight genetic community with the exception of perhaps the nazis under 2. world war. Wolfram thinks they are a mixture of other people joining up amongst the migration but the "core" of the tribe is made from Scandinavic kings. This is really interesting. We all know Jordannes in no possible way could have Facts about this because hes writing somewhere in the 550s so Jordannes must have the knowledge af the Amali ( the kings of goths) from someone. And this is where many scholars believes that Jordannes is rewritting everything from Cassiodorus "gothic history" which is lost. Cassiodorus is meant to be instructed by Theoderic to write a gothic history. Exploring the genealogy of the amali by cassiodurus must have excisted on Sagas and spoken legends of prehestoric kings of the amali. So what are the odds that Theoderic can actually remember his royal line sofar befind as the migration from scandinavic? Its a shame I dont have the list but we have seen and discussed it a couble of times with "arne søbe christensen" and the line usually break after 3-4 steps backwards were kings are mentioned who we simply have no knowledge about at all. So at some point the line might possible have been made up by either Theoderic or Cassiodorus. So the entire Gothic legendary story is a best uncertain - But I need to stress that it can be true ofcourse!


 * Looking at reasons for why the gothic history is written brings sceptives to some other thoughts. Armory and Goffart both interpretate Jordannes Getica as a story to present the romans for a gothic people just as proud as the romans. The roman legacy leads back to troy, so what jordannes and possible ( we have no idea since the work is lost ) Cassiodorus wanted to do was to present a new gothic tribe who goes as far back in time as the roman people which makes the Goths a respectable tribe. Problem is they cant mention the Gothic history originated at troy, because the Greek literature already have written alot about that event. So too create a new legendary story Scandinavian gives completely free bounds to write whatever possible you want about the distant past making the goths just as old, perhaps even older, than the romans and thereby respected. When jordannes is writing in 550 is the period where Justinian and the eastern roman empire is trying to reconquer the "lost" west. What Goffart and Armory does is suggest that Getica is not a historically correct story but its trying to convice the romans that they do not fear the Goths because there distant past is just as splendid as the romans. They are not just "mere" barbarians.


 * As to the archealogy. There are little doubt that the Cernjachov culture is connected with the Goths we seen enter the roman empire in 376. The wielbark culture is often linked with parts of scandinavia aswell. The problem is there are no evidence between the Wielbark and Cernjachov culture which proves the migration. To put in another quote from Guy Halsall


 * "A link between the between the Gernajachov culture and the fourth century gothic polities seems certain; Connecting this culture with the Wielbark and thus a gothic migration from the baltic is trickier" Halsall, guy : (1999)


 * So the discussion is not about what the Wielbark culture is really combosed of, Might have been some scandinavic tribes, might havent. The discussion is if the link is there between the Wielbark and cernjachov proving some sort of migration. Some find a link, other do not. The most heavy criticism is as I mentioned before is its not possible to prove wether artefacts from Wielbark in cernjachov is there because of trade or migration as its not possible to prove wether artefacts in Wielbark from Cernjachov is trade or migration. As much as I find archealogy intersting the problem is with todays technology its not really possible to say alot. Thats why many archealogys have the notion of the migration from Getica and then find in the ground artefacts who supports this migration and everything who rejects it are seen as sign of trades, because the migration is documented in the Getica right so why not make it true? (Irony, might sounds harsh and hope no archealogist are offended but it is a real criticism on todays finding. I have the utmost respect from archealogist its one of the more Secure ways of documenting the past :)).


 * this leads to more question. First why would the Scandinavic people even want to migrate? Ive heard theories from overpopulation, In search of better farming grounds and the idea of a "Wanderstämme" which wolfram apply. To question some of them, we often hear about a close density of settlements in the Wielbark area which could suggest overpopulation, but again we also know those settlements are small and shortlived which rejects the idea of overpopulation. The goths in search of farming grounds, again we need to question why the migration happens as it does. If they were in search of farming grounds why do they wait so long with the migration. secondly we know that when the Goths enters the roman empire in 376, that some goths stay behind. Why do these stay behind if they are in search of farming lands? Wolframs "wänderstamme" theory is hard to deny but also hard to confirm. That some tribes wander because they are "born"(lack of better word) to it.


 * Finally you can critisize the entier idea about the migration by the the idea thats its too much based on the need to find the "coherent" history. I mean, you know the viking migratied south so why not the goths? Same with the huns. You know the mongols invated europe so why not project the Huns back to the same starting point as the mongols.


 * In the end we have to theorys to make this very long post short.
 * 1: The migration from scandinavic or atleast the Wielbark area.
 * 2: The idea that the Goths origins in the Cernjachov area somewhere in the East balkans and always have lived here before they enter the Roman empire. Perhaps because they are pushed by the huns? In the end we have no clue.


 * The first theory is alot more exiting and it does say alot more, which is exactly the problem about the second theory, that it actually says very little and we have no knowledge about this. People want interesting storys thats why I think the first theory is so widely backup same with the Barbarian invasion theory causing the collapse of rome. And In the end I think there is nothing wrong with having an article like this about the goths, after all Getica is a source whatever way we twist and turn the facts and the chance of it being true are there. Its mainly new research we are talking about here so no need to change to article untill we are more sure about what really went on if we ever will be. It still is a very good article and none can infute it as being untrue. I wouldnt mind though if someone wrote another part with the ongoing discussion but for me it arent vital because the research still is very new and rather wait to its discussed more before adding it and half depated trough possition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.164.83.90 (talk • contribs).

You should get yourself an account and start contributing to the articles. First of all - the devil is in the details. You raise many questions that together show how hard studies in humanistics are in general: All these points bring in uncertainty about the origins of the Goths, and the more you look into the details, the more easy it is to question everything. However, what most scholars do, I guess, is to put the appearance of the Goths near the Roman borders in the context of the Germanic migrations from Northern Europe, more generally. There were probably many reasons why Scandinavians would like to migrate, since you find a similar exodus during the Viking Age.--Berig 14:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Do the Goths equate the Chernyakhov culture? Yes, most likely, but can we be 100% sure? No.
 * 2) Do the Goths equate the Wielbark culture? Yes, probably, but can we be 100% sure? No.
 * 3) Can we infer a connection between the Wielbark culture and the Chernyakhov culture? Here the certainty is inevitably even less certain since material objects are easily replaced during migrations. As Nordengren told me in personal communication: you don't bring all the pottery when you migrate. You can easily get new new ones of local manufacture when you arrive.
 * 4) Is there a connection between Scandinavia and the Wielbark culture? Yes, there is, but does it prove a migration? No.

Goths in Finland?
In Finland there is a small group of cemeteries very similar to the ones Ostrogothia and in the Wielbark culture. This fact as well as numerous Germanic loan-words in Finnish have given birth to a theory of limited Gothic and/or East Scandinavian settlement or at least cultural influence in Finland. Do you think this should be mentioned in this article?--130.234.75.20 14:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Drieakko was written on Talk:Sitones that there was an early Swedish settlement 0 - 200 CE (so early that its language must have been Proto-Germanic) in South-Western Finland. It would be great if you some of you Finns could write an article on this settlement and/or earlier ones since it left both archaeological and linguistic traces.--Berig 14:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll give it a try next week.--217.112.249.156 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)EditUnfortunately I have to cancel my promise to write this aricle, as I have no time right now (a thesis to write...). Maybe I can take it up later.--130.234.75.164 13:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As a curious side note, Ynglingasaga's both Finland related stories roughly date to this early period of Germanic settlements in Finland. Later, Ynglingasaga ignores Finland completely. --Drieakko 19:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is interesting. According to the internal chronology of the Ynglinga saga, Dag the Wise made a raid on the Goths at the time when they would still be living on the shores of the Baltic sea. A Swedish scholar named Sundquist has written a recent dissertation on Ynglingatal (Sundquist, O. "Freyr"s offspring. Rulers and religion in ancient Svea society". 2004) showing that Ynglingatal is largely based on real events. To summarize his thesis: there are so many details in Ynglingatal that are confirmed by archaeology that the tradition is very unlikely to be entirely 12th century fiction, as some saga-bashers want to make it out to be.--Berig 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dag the Wise's son Agne was the one who allegedly raided Finland, possibly at the end of the 4th century. Very roughly around the same time the Germanic characteristics of the coastal Finnish population cease to exist, even though there is no evidence that it would have happened abruptly. Agne's raid in Finland is however the last mention of any relevant things happening in Finland in the first Millennium, from the Swedish point of view. Freely speculating, Ynglingasaga's Finland related stories may be remnants of interaction between the Germanic settlers in Finland and their homeland relatives. Once the settlements had lost their Germanic nature and language, there was not much activity on that front any more. --Drieakko 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the Germanic settlement is connected with Agne's raid, it could mean that the Germanic settlement disappeared because of Swedish attacks. The survivors could have merged with the Fenno-Ugric tribes dispersing the Proto-Germanic loan-words in Finnish. Speculative but not unrealistic, I guess.--Berig 20:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can or should equate Thervingi & Greuthungi w/ Visigoths & Ostrogoths
I guess that sums up my concern. Jacob Haller 05:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your reservation. Modern scholarship has shown that this equation is ungrounded. 3rd century "Goths" are not the same peoples with the 4th century Visigoths/Ostrogoths. The connection between them was made up in the 4th-5th century. E.g. Ostrogoth kings used the Amal legacy but, actually, they didn't belong to that much older tradition. See Patric Geary, The Myth Of Nations and David S. Potter, The Roman Empire At Bay Dipa1965 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Germany? Germany?!? Germany?!?!?
Okay, how do the Goths come into Wikiproject Germany? I wouldn't mind the help but aren't Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, Italy, France & Spain more relevent? Jacob Haller 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard to tell... maybe the Germany Wikiprojectists are a very curious and clever bunch of guys interested in improving as many articles as possible. They're welcome, of course. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Where they came from vs. who they were
It seems the older sections all focus on one question: where did the Goths come from? (which doesn't lend itself to clear answers anyway) and neglected several other questions: who were the Goths? how did they live? etc. (which archaeological evidence can help answer).

I've started short sections of settlement patterns & burial practices. But it seems like most of the article is devoted to perpetually-disputed Swedish-Polish connections much earlier, and very little to the 3rd century, 4th century, or after, or to descriptions of their way of life. Jacob Haller 17:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Does this actually mean anything, and if so, what?
Quoting from the language section: "Similarly, the Saxon dialects of Germany are hardly closer to Anglo-Saxon than any other West Germanic language that hasn't undergone the High German consonant shift (see Grimm's law), but the tribes themselves are definitely identical." I can't figure out what the last passage means. There are English who are not (upper) Saxon and there are (upper) Saxons who are not English, so the two groups are not identical; rather they derive certain elements of English-ness and Saxon-ness from the common origin. (The same concern applies to Gotho-Scandinavian connections as to Anglo-German ones). Jacob Haller 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

U5a1a & R1b1c9a
Both U5a1a & R1b1c9a haplogroups are germanic. U5a1a are Goths and R1b1c9a is Norman/Belgica/Friesian - Celtic/Germanic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.143.164 (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Etymologically identical
I haven't encountered this syntagm so far. However, intuitively, I assume it's about words who are paired in two parallel languages in etymological evolution, not words occuring by "expected sound changes" (most words evolve by "expected sound changes" - this is how linguistics works, isn't it?). Therefore if one claims Gutar and Goths are "etymologically identical" he has to show how Goths and Gutar evolved linguistically (or to bring a scholar reference for that). Daizus 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Separate Gothic origins page?
Should we create one? It would provide a place to discuss Gothic origins, different models, etc. without giving undue weight on this page (and repeating the discussions on other pages). We would have three main issues (1) the origin of the Baltic Goths (and the importance of the Scandinavian connection), (2) the origin of the Black Sea Goths (and different models: mass migration, smaller migration and Gothic conquest/elite dominance, smaller migration and Gothicization (locals become Goths) and/or Dacian/Sarmationization (Goths become locals), etc.), (3) the origin of the later Visigoths and Ostrogoths. Any thoughts? Jacob Haller 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The origins of the Goths is one of the great history questions and has a long and rich historiography with many approaches - it easily could have its own article. -- Stbalbach 14:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly could. But it would be long and complex to write.  I've been researching the question of various tribal origins for a couple of decades, and read on average 40-100 pages of scholarly material a day.  I got stuck with trying to figure out the period 12-17,000BP, wherein a great deal of molecular evidence is now rewriting views on linguistic evidence (not to mention continued archaeological finds).   The lack of material culture in areas later claimed to the the "origin" of Goths (meaning, the people in those areas had very few tools, no fired clay goods, etc) is problematic.  Usually, when a people have an "origin," they have enough people and material to be considered "a people."  This makes most anthropologists and prehistorians look to a Pontic origin (both the Y chromosome and linguistic evidence seem tantalizing - but it is a complex discussion."  Certainly the sound sequence G^t is around a long time, probably longer than lund/land (which is probably 'in, 'lin in the Pontic regions).  So if someone called themselves Goths around 8000BP and lived in one of the Black Lake River drainages (IIRC, the Black Sea was still freshwater at that point), that would be a viable hypothesis (they would have picked up suffixes a bit later).  But which river?  For that, we have to have a notion of what "pre-historic Goth" is - and it seems to be a swirling group of tribes just outside the continuous inspection of both the Greeks and the Romans.  All three groups (Greeks, Romans and Goths) almost certainly share common ancestry...so where to begin and how far back to take it, would be difficult questions.  But very pertinent and interesting.--LeValley 04:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

D.H. Green on the Bastarnae
Green, D.H., Language and History in the early Germanic World, pp. 164ff, identifies the Bastarnae as an East-Germanic group, and argues that some East-Germanic speakers had settled the Black Sea area as early as the 2nd Century B.C.E. Jacob Haller 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats the article Bastarnae. It's sometimes (often?) assumed, without real proofs, that they were "assimilated with" the Goths or more probably, constituting one important contingent of the Ostrogothic kingdom of early AD centuries up until the Hunn catastrophe. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Roman and Cappadocian prisoners
It's my understanding (based third-hand) that the prisoners came from Cappadocian, which was part of the Roman Empire, but also from other parts of the Roman Empire as well. Which is why the original "Roman prisoners" seemed like the best option. I'm not sure why we need to specify Cappadocian, why not just say they were "Roman", which is really the most important element in the context of the sentence. -- Stbalbach 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Stbalbach. The "some were Cappadocian" angle is appropriate to the Ulfilas article as well as an article on the Conversion, but really not needed in the general article on the Goths. I think the issues of persecution, conversion rate, and the supposed war between Fritigern and Athanaric are more important here. Jacob Haller 00:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder about Wikipedia
I deleted the bit that apparently needed a citation because, I believe, if something needs a citation to be considered factual, it might as well not be in the article until it's cited. Make sense? 152.23.196.162 01:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think (contra Kulikowski) that the Vistula (Weilbark) origin is well-established, mostly because the Gothic language is so thoroughly Germanic. We have linguistics, archaeology, and Jordanes telling similar stories; I don't trust Jordanes but I trust the linguistic resemblance (same four cases, Grimm's law, etc.), the archaeological resemblance (near-complete absence of weapon burials), and, generally speaking, the expertise of the scholars involved. Jacob Haller 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to ask, as I always do when I hear that something is linguistically "thoroughly Germanic," what does that mean? I know all about PIE, and I know that Latin, Greek Sanskrit and Celto-Slavic show up early indeed.  The shift in Grimm's law is thought to have occurred 1000B.C.E. - but it's highly likely the Goths were around before that (and underwent the shift; for whatever reason it occurred; but there is no general agreement what to call THAT language - the one that shifted...and it took some time for so many "Germanic" tribes to rise - it seems inconceivable that all those tribes appeared in between 1000 B.C.E. and 800.B.C.E. when their names start to be written down by Greeks.  Indeed, the word Germanic, which is retroactively applied (because the Grimms were studying from their own present, backwards) implies things about the Goths (such as that they were from the modern nation that English speakers call Germany) is not the most academic for this purpose and may well be changing.   If we are going to say the Goths are "thoroughly German" linguistically, we have to explain the difference between culture, language, genes and geography a bit better, is what I'm trying to say.  And good luck with that!  Someone needs to write a book and make it clear, so we can cite it.   But seriously, is there any evidence that the Grimm's law shift took place before (or after) the shifters came to the Danube? --LeValley 04:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Lost tribes of Israel"
The following is unsourced and makes the article appear zany: ''Some would argue that the Goths had their origins in the Lost Tribes of Israel. To date there is not a substantial amount of evidence to support this theory, however, those that support the Goth's origins in the Baltics would have to acknowledge the accounts of the Lost Tribes of Israel being forcibly relocated there by Assyria. This relocation ocurred almost 1000 years before records of the Goths first surfaced, putting it in the "right" time frame. (The Lost Tribes were believed to have been relocated around 700 BC).'' This is just not mainstream material.--Wetman 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. In earlier times, basically any European nation drew their heritage from the tribes of Israel, inventing all kinds of complicated explanations how ever that was possible. As a concept that requires an article :) but it is not meaningful to mention for individual nations any more. --Drieakko 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Food for thought :) The opposite to the premise may also be valid, i.e., the Tribes of Israel may have also had Gothic members. Please bear with my convoluted hypothetical analysis. Consider that both the Hittite an Egyptian empires around the time of the exodus were multi-ethnic cosmopolitan empires who drew in professionals of many nationalities. The province of Canaan, situated between (and at times a part of) these two empires was by no means homogenous. The widowed Mitanni-Egyptian queen Nefertiti was unable to secure peace and union when the Hittite prince she was to marry was assasinated en route to Egypt, possibly at the hands of her (hypothetically) adoptive father Ay, q.v. 'Secrets of the Exodus' book. According to that book, the tribes of Israel were composed of Judah (former priests of the Egyptian empire who had converted to monotheism under Akhenaten), and settled strategically closer to Egypt, and the 'Erev-rav' ('common people' of the empire, 'Hebrews'). The Erev-rav had comprised the various layers of the Egyptian (monotheistic [and polytheistic]) bureaucracy under Akhenaten as 'servants' in the sense of 'public servants'. These public servants were multiethnic (e.g. ancestors of the Masai 'police', Hittites, Minoans, Akkadians, descendants of the Guti etc.) and skilled. They were not killed due to differences in faith with that of the Egyptian empire, but were escorted in a civilised manner to repopulate the promised border province that the Egyptians had lost. Later modification of the old testament during the Babylonian captivity distanced literarily the Tribes of Israel from the Egyptian rivals of the Babylonians. The crisis of the 'moving of the people' was that the border province of Canaan was not firmly under Egyptian control, and had to be reconquered by Seti I aka Joshua (son of Nun), before the people could settle there in security. This is just a possibility mind you, but one worth considering when venturing into the 'outlier' discussion about Goths and the Lost (non-Judah & -Benjamin) Tribes of Israel, who in this hypothesis are more predominantly defined by adherence to a common faith in one G-d than their ethnicity - perhaps this had something indirectly to do with their later disappearance? Gabrieli 11:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Spinning off "Origin of the Name "Goth" (*Gut-)"
Suggesting spinning off the section "Origin of the Name "Goth" (*Gut-)" as its own article, like Origin of the name Goth. Articles Geat, Gotland and Götaland could link to it, and Goths naturally as well. --Drieakko 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea but I am not sure there is enough on just the name. It is sort of marginal. We can see how the article develops. In the more than a year since you wrote, it hasn't developed, so maybe what we got is enough.Dave (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly also include the articles on the Guti and Oium. The connection is hypothetical, but the word Guti is very similar to {*Gut-}. The Guti utterly destroyed Akkad around 2215 BC, about 120 years after the last Sag-giga ('black-headed' or 'Sumerian') king was defeated by Sargon the Great founder of the Semitic Akkadian dynasty. Jordanes' account in the article on Oium where the Goths defeat the legendary Egyptian Pharaoh Sesostris (1291 BC - 1212 BC), apparently a compound of Ramesses I and Seti I, who strangely enough are hypothetically Moses and Joshua (son of Nun) respectively, according to the book Secrets of the Exodus: The Egyptian Origins of the Hebrew People by Messod Sabbah, Roger Sabbah, transl. Art Banta, and Lois Banta (2004). The book also mentions Nefertiti (daughter of a priest of the Mitanni who are a tribe related to the Guti), influencing her husband Akhenaten and co-founding the monotheistic worship of the solar disk, which leads to the escorted exodus of the monotheistic Egyptians to the frontier provinces in Canaan. Gabrieli 09:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The connection is not hypothetical, but non-sensical.--217.112.249.156 15:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to support the non-user user above. We can't just make history up as we go along, we need sources of it. None of Jordanes' Bronze-Age speculations are in any way elsewhere supported. There is no evidence that the Egyptians knew anything at all about south Russia much less campaign there. Herodotus tells us all about the snow. Egypt apparently never heard of it, and so on. Jordanes writes credibly on events near his own time, but the greater the time differential, the less gets the credibility. I got comments on this below too.Dave (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A different etymological point, and one which so far no-one seems to have remarked upon, is that the derivation of Goth, namely the IE root gheud- (to pour) seems also to be the same origin as the English words "gather, together" and by extension "good". Therefore, instead of meaning "pourers of semen" (an early kenning, perhaps?), which has always struck me as unlikely, the word Goth might simply have started out as a self-referential word for "tribe".
 * Then again, it's just my hypothesis against everyone else's.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good hypothesis though (pun was unintended, but there it is). What people who invoke Grimm's law don't seem to understand is that BEFORE Griim's law, Goth was Got.  (And no one knows exactly the vowel sound, except it was uh or oh so Guth/Gut; Goth/Got.  The fact that some developed a lisping way of saying something (no disrespect at all intended, this is how sound shifts happen and so forth), does not mean that initially their languages were mutually unintelligible (I can still understand Cockney, Aussie or even Southern American English, more or less - sometimes with difficulty, I'll admit), does not instantly make them into a new people - nor might they have even been aware of anything more than a simple accent difference.  The root Goot, then, everyone agrees, is the pre-Grimm's law root (and not Guth or Gooth).  So what does it mean?  It could mean Good/Us/Not Bad/Not enemy, as so many words used for "us folk" mean.  Now, the world "Folk" is arguably much later (f-lk is not a well studied PIE root term like Goot).  Fulk seems to mean 'younger group' or "those that are over there, not in the central place."  For some, it later means "tribe" as well (and becomes both a first and last name).  If it's in PIE, then of course it makes sense to check it out for cognates in Afro-Asiatic and Proto-World.  So I agree with you, but it's just you and me, with our hypotheses, among so many others.--LeValley 04:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

History
The only source for early Gothic history is Jordanes' Getica (finished in 551 or around 1850), a condensation of the lost twelve-volume history of the Goths written in Italy by Cassiodorus around 530. Jordanes may not even have had the work at hand to consult from, and this early information should be treated with caution. Cassiodorus was well placed to write of Goths, for he was an essential minister of Theodoric the Great, who apparently had heard some of the Gothic songs that told of their traditional origins.

Several historians, including Peter Heather and Michael Kulikowski, argue that Jordanes' Getica presents a fictional genealogy of Theodoric and fictional history of the Goths for ancient propaganda purposes, and cast doubt on the Scandinavian origin, on the supposed royal dynasties, and on the supposed 4th-Century Kingdom of Ermaneric.


 * Actually Jordanes work is known only from edition of German politician and writer Theodore Mommsen. The 'Jordanes original manuscript' has been supposedly burn in Mommsen house by his elderly handicapped ancestor. The fact that nobody presented references, to any scholar mentioning Getica before 1800, doubts the document existence in older times. Also computer (n-gram) statistical algorithm, obviously ignorant of 'Mommsen Monumental Works', recognize the major text, of 'Goth language', text as Czech or Polish. Czech Prag is the place where from the Codex Argentus was forcefully taken. All the surrounding facts point to Mommsen, who was enough good Latin writer to received Noble Price in literature.

What do you think about adding the section above ? Any obejction ?


 * Re: Getica can you provide sources for your addition? If you can provide good scholarly citations, it will be very relevant, though probably still controversial. Jacob Haller 01:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: Codices Argenteus et al. there are several codices and fragments. I'm not sure whether the Argenteus was found in Praha but the Speyer fragment wasn't and other Gothic texts or fragments derive from Italy and elsewhere. Although the extant Gothic texts use their own alphabet (modified from the Greek), they use the same uncial writing styles as late antique Greek and Latin texts. Jacob Haller 01:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: "Goth Language" see Gothic language for differences between Gothic and the Slavic languages. If you start reading the Gothic corpus, Grimm's Law is very noticable. Other features (the four-case system, ablaut, the two-tense system with present, preterite and the use of the verb "to will" to show the future and future perfect, etc.) also show ties with the Germanic languages. Jacob Haller 01:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and one evolved from the other (the Slavic pronunciation came first). A sound shift does not a new people make (nor even a new language).  So, if you follow your own argument, the Goths are split off from proto-Slavic (which would explain a lot of toponymic similarities).  Indeed, if it weren't for the few sound shifts, we would be calling Germanic languages Slavic.  A very great deal was made of this in the 19th century, but this is the 21st century - and other things, such as genes, are at play as well.--LeValley 05:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

High German Connection
Can anyone tell me if Gothic was spoken in what became Germany in the Dark Ages? Its never mentionned whether it was, and Im wondering what was spoken there prior to Old High German.80.192.4.73 13:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Gothic was never widely spoken in Germany (and I am surprised that someone has put a "Germany project" banner on this page). The indigenous population of southern Germany is believed to have spoken Celtic dialects (later probably mixed with Vulgar Latin).--Berig 13:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion arises because German culture was called "Gothic" by the Italians in the 15th century. This was a contemptuous nickname more or less equivalent to "barbarian". Recognizable Gothic probably didn't arise before the 2nd century, in the Ukraine, and was later spoken, of course, in Romania, former Yugoslavia, Italy, southern France and Spain, but never in Germany. That said, if you include Vandalic, which for all we know was practically identical to Gothic, Vandalic was spoken in what is now Poland and the Czech Republic, and spilled over into Austria and/or southern Germany before they moved forther west to France, Spain and Africa. So, if you like, Gothic (Vandalic) was spoken in souther Germany, if only for a decade or two in the early 400s. dab (𒁳) 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Encarta?
I just wondering, do we really Encarta in here? I see a attribution to it [third paragraph] John Manuel-22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I now deleted that paragraph, about Gothic origins. /Pieter Kuiper 19:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jordanes
A literal reading of Jordanes is definitely a fringe view. The 1490 BC crap should be removed from the intro. Jacob Haller 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is crap written by Jordanes. It tells us something about Jordanes' reliability. One cannot just pick the pieces from Jordanes that one likes (the emigration myth), and discard the rest. This view of Jordanes is not fringe - read: /Pieter Kuiper 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Kulikowski overstates the case - I think that without Jordanes, the linguistic evidence still points to strong Germanic influences - but my point is that there are two common models, either (1) throw Jordanes out, or (2) substantially reinterpret Jordanes, yet the intro begins "The Goths (Gothic: gutans, Gutans) were an East Germanic tribe who, according to Jordanes, left Scandinavia in 1490 B.C., settled close to the mouth of the Vistula river (in present day Poland), and settled Scythia, Dacia and parts of Moesia and Asia Minor about a millennium before the common era. In the 3rd and 4th centuries, they harried the Roman Empire and later adopted Arianism (a form of Christianity). In the 5th and 6th centuries, by dividing into the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths they established powerful successor-states of the Roman Empire in Italy and on the Iberian peninsula (now Spain & Portugal)." and I would suggest trimming that to "The Goths (Gothic: gutans, Gutans) were an East Germanic tribe who, in the 3rd and 4th centuries, harried the Roman Empire and later adopted Arianism (a form of Christianity). In the 5th and 6th centuries, by dividing into the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths they established powerful successor-states of the Roman Empire in Italy and on the Iberian peninsula (now Spain & Portugal)." or some such. Jacob Haller 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, that intro should be uncontroversial. After that, something should be done about the "origins" section. It should be much less prominent than what it is now, and more representative of modern views. Or make it plural: "were East Germanic tribes". /Pieter Kuiper 19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To get a perspective one should know that there were remarkably good connections between Scandinavia and east Mediterranean in the nordic bronze age. The Kiviks grave and also similarities of symbols on rock carvings that also appears in Greece at this time, are among the strongest clues to that. Also findings of amber in Egypt, that has its origin around The Baltic Sea. So at least don't use the word crap. Mange Andersson 83.253.245.169 (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, yes. Some have you have discovered the ancient source problem. All the sources are like that, you know. If the discovery of a false report makes an author totally unworthy of credibility then we have no ancient history. So, some of most authors has to be discounted, but there is a method. You look for substantiation elsewhere. Right now this article is a bit one-sided; however, I will be addressing that soon. A second approach looks for falsity to be substantiated elsewhere. But what do you do then? Well, if something is shown to be wrong, you discount it. Otherwise you have no reason not to accept it. The principle is familiar to us: innocent until proven guilty. So, until someone shows me that Jordanes is wrong then I believe everything he says. If I do not then there can be no ancient history. All the mediaeval writers write the same way: first the items of tradition or belief, then what the author knows. For the earlier times, we are pretty sure no pharohs of Egypt fought it out with the Goths in the Bronze Age. The names he cites are not Germanic. It appears as though he got some Alanic names and traditions, but that is a theory that would have to be proved. A lot of Jordanes is independently verified. We are as safe as anyone in using that. I see that this is the first acquaintance of some of you with the methods and assumptions of ancient history, or indeed history. I hope that you go further; however, this is not a new field, or an unscientific one, or a hobby field where whatever anyone says goes. Jordanes is pretty standard and so pretty much is incredibility of his earliest events. Best wishes, I hope you go further.Dave (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Need I remind everyone that this article is about Goths? Not about mediterranian influences on bronze age Scandinavia, which as yet is to be proven to be Germanic or Finnic; nor about Jordanes' Getica;
 * 2. Take a peak at Imre Lakatos: using auxiliary hypotheses to provisionally reject facts contradicting the main clauses of a theory is established practice in all science, but the rejections must be properly explained in a critical audience,
 * 3. A special remark for involved Swedes: don't get stingy and fire up for nothing (against "crap"), we're speaking English here in an English speaking culture! Just calm down and forget about Sweden's troubles for a while!
 * Said: Rursus (☻) 08:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotar compared to 'gotra' of Indo-Aryan
Gotar is also like the word gotra meaning race, linege in Sanskrit and originally only referred to people of Vedic birth right.

The same is with 'Jaata' which is like the word Jute. Jaata also is like Gotra meaning birthright, linege. The word jati is related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can produce some kind of credible literature on this, feel free to do so. Until then, let's keep 'Jats' off the "See also" list, ok? Aryaman (☼) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blatantly POV
This article is so pathetically POV it's not even funny. NOTHING about music, graveyards, poetry, darkness or tips on how to dye your hair black and stuff. You think Goths are old fashioned? There is Goth websites and everything. You people are not living in the real world, we're nothing like this article anymore. Try hanging out at a Goth club for a weekend (if anyone asks you for blood, run) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.72.187 (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are looking for Goth subculture. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To the literatur list you should add the two dissertations by Arne Søby Christensen (Cassiodur, Jordanes and the muth of the Goths (2002) and Ingemar Nordgren (2004), The Well Spring of the Goths. 87.57.197.10 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Jan Eskildsen