Talk:Scandza

Discussion at December 2004
An anonymous user added this:
 * It should be noted that it is clear that Jordanes hadn't been to the island himself, but described it on basis of legends and famous geographers' imperfect knowledge about the north of Europe, from days when it is considered that it was a common belief that the earth was round and flat.

In what way is it clear that it was based on legends? Unlike many later authors such as Adam of Bremen there are no supernatural creatures such as people with dog heads. What strange information Jordanes provided was correct (as far as it is possible to confirm it) and most of the tribes he mentioned can be identified. I find it clear that it was based on accounts of travellers such as Rodwulf, instead. Moreover, in what way is it relevant that contemporary people believed that the earth was flat??? I will remove this highly POV criticism.--Wiglaf 15:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Critics on Jordanes and discussion of his reliability and sources can be read here for instance: It prooves me right about that.
 * The Getica of Jordanes - Books I-III Critical Analysis Review by Eric Anctil (#9730315) a student thesis for Professor: A.N. Sherwood with bibliography

When it comes to the theory of the shape of the earth, see flat earth; I thought about Mela when I wrote it, because there are nothing that says either that he belived in the flat earth theory, nor a spherical.

In DE SITU ORBIS (Grovonius' edition of 1683, as revised with important additions by his son in 1748), it is called Codanonia, but in DE CHOROGRAPHIA (internetedition) Scadinavia.

Here is another interpretation of the mentioned people and their lands: De Origine Actibusque Gothorum I:III with "classicized" grammar, normalized spelling and some emendations by Þeedrich Yeat.

I don´t think that the article is objective. To be objective it has to present all major different aspects, not present highely critizised interpretations without comments but as facts. The major theory among historicans today, is that you have to be very careful about Jordanes' information, although he is quite accurate and right about some things./213.101

...sort of a 6th century Wikipedian... --Wetman 07:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me first state that I mostly agree with Antil's theory about the Goths. Moreover, Anctil's criticism is not as negative as yours. However, the major problem with Anctil is that he has an agenda behind flogging Jordanes. Anctil maintains that you should not take Jordanes writings at face value, and Anctil's objective is that then you might be more ready to believe Anctil's own theories about the origins of the Goths. There are many scholars who think differently, and consequently, I do not see how Anctil's argumentation could prove your point of view. You wrote The major theory among historicans today, is that you have to be very careful about Jordanes' information, although he is quite accurate and right about some things. That goes for most ancient sources. Why don't you add a last paragraph called "criticism" instead?--Wiglaf 09:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My point of view is that there are several ideas about the origins of the goths, the land where they came from, and related tribes. Beside that all ancient sources are fruits of their times, and the ideas, methods, and purposes that comes with any writer has to be integrated, discussed and clearified in the intepretation. Further that the reliability of Jordanes is questioned by professionals, and that that has to be presented in every part of the article if claiming objetivity. To point out certain people of Sweden as "these mentioned in Getica" like that is a little speculative; interesting enough to be kept in the article, but even so it should be considered more as a suggested reading upon Jordanes. That my personal opinion in fact is that you are quite right about most of it, is not relevant.

I don't feel ready to write that critics though; the reason why I interferred was to point at the incertency, which I still think has to be added to the article ("That goes for most ancient sources"). If you read the abbr. swedish translation of this article, I think you will understand what I mean./213.101


 * Well certainty is a rare animal in research. I'd prefer to start the article on a positive note, and then let the identifications speak for themselves and most of them are not questioned, AFAIK. I will give it a thought, though.--Wiglaf 11:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm so sorry :-) that I can't find the sources for the, as far as I know general belief that Jordanes never had been to Scandinavia himself. The presumption is based upon his dependance of sources like Cassiodorus, Pliny etc, and traditions among historicans./213.101


 * Hi, saw this discussion. Scandza seems to be a deliberate misassociation to Scotland by the "Screrefennae". They later claim they did not do it, as "Sami", and if caught tries to make "Sami" look bad, which really is an accurate name of the place mistakenly according to the former "Scandinavia", "Norway, Sweden, Denmark". The "Sami" still seem to try and make "Sami" look bad, with ridicolous outfits, and recently the "Fosen" action, they claim against reindeer abuse. They reindeer seem to have no problems at Fosen. They also seem to try and ridicule the runic concept of God, E (Ayn). One should disassociate, and also know that "Samilands" is a correct name of Scandinavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE1:7001:F100:6593:8F10:DEFC:ADD4 (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think he ever was to the island (a peninsula according to his description) himself either :-). But, I do wonder which other island you suggest would correspond to Scandza.--Wiglaf 12:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you get me wrong: I do have read Jordanes in english and compared it with latin editions but my latin is very poor. My point is that some says (= secondary sources), and it seems that we both find it obvious that so it is, that the knowledge about Scandinavia was so limited; and therefore, as my stand, the descriptions should not be taken that hard. There could be misinterpretations and unpurposed desinformation by them that isn't that clear to us. One should be careful when reading Jordanes, in my opinion./213.101
 * I thought the intro made this clear:It contains several accurate descriptions of Scandinavia, but is also jumbled and composed of information from several sources.--Wiglaf 13:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It might be clear to you, but consider that also teenagers for instance read this, and because of that it is very important to explain, that there aren't an unquostioned "N1=N2" but instead possibilities, probabilities and suggestions. Further I would like that the article would present the context, both the historical one, the idea historical, and Jordanes'. /213.101


 * Do that in a subsection called "criticism", please. Moreover, the context is easily accessible for anyone, including teenagers, by clicking on Jordanes and Getica.--Wiglaf 17:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What do critics mean?
What do critics, what is it that you critisize. im swedish so my english isnt world class. do you mean that the Goths didnt come from Scandzia or do you mean that Scandzia isnt the same as Scandinavia? if its later then i must say that you are wrong because theres no region in europe that is even close to jordanes descripton except Scandinavia?


 * None said so, because none forgot to sign the comment by adding ~ to the end of it. Said: Rursus ☻ 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy
In Sweden there are a lot of so called historicians (mostly amateurs, f.ex. the Västgötaskolan "Western Geatish School") that invent a lot of connexions between mounds here and there in farmer Sweden and sentences about places and nations in old historical scriptures that forwards second hand histories of doubtful value and fill in the missing information by fabulation. The characteristic of these saga-makers, is that they never test arguments against their theories, and therefore safely can be said to reside outside science. This article must safe-guard against this by providing lots and lots of citations. Currently it cites Jordanes, who couldn't make any identification to places 1400 after his death, and beside that [northvegr.org] – nothing else!!! The factual accuracy is very very weak, it must be strengthened. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Northverg.org is not a fact or research site, it is a lore, saga and maybe philosophy site. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * List of dubiosities:
 * How do we know Rodulf was from Bohuslän? Why not Blekinge, where the Herul inscriptions were found?
 * I thought that very few of the nations mentioned in Getica were positively identified, then with some doubt "Ostrogoti" as "Eastern Geats", and maybe "Suehans" with 'Swedes' (of Uppland) although "Suetidi" may be the 'Swedes', the text conveniently trying to diminish this so obvious ambiguity.
 * Why, if the "Screrefennae" are 'Sami' are they garthering game in the woods, and not cultivating reindeer?
 * I thought the "Vagoths" were the 'Western Geats' not the gotlanders. I thougth I heard someone historician saying that the "Vagoths" were identified as 'Western Geats'.
 * It seems one editor to this article has decided that "Liothida" is 'Luggude Hundred' or 'Lödde', but at the same time mentions that other sources connects "Liothida" to Södermanland. Why has the article choosen, and what citations can support such a stand point?
 * Why is "Ahelmil" connected to 'Halmstad'? Etymology doesn't seem to support such a connection, or does it? And the first archeological findings from Övraby, where was the original Halmstad, seems to indicate a trading post around 1000, isn't the identification anachronistic? Citation needed.
 * "Evagres" and "Otingis" are connected to 'Bohuslän' obviously by arbitrary opinion about the likeness between living among stones and 'Bohuslän'. Is this pure fabulation, or does it build on any reasonable argument? And besides, I thought that Bohuslän was part of Ranrike...
 * etc. ...
 * Said: Rursus ☻ 15:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - Neutral Point of View
The micro-section of Myths about Scandza seems to tell us the following: "Scandza refers provenly to all Scandinavia." and "The support against the Goths being from Scandinavia is very weak". This is not facts, it is opinions. The fact is that there is not enough proof neither for nor against the statement that "Scandza equals Scandinavia", and the fact is that there is not enough proof neither for nor against the statement that "The Goths originated from Scandinavia". My personal opinion is that the Goths emerged from my bath room, when I was at the job, but that is an opinion. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeframe
I happened to check the 'disambiguation needed', in the section Inhabitants. I did not find out to fix the disambiguation, but I did find an online translation of Jordanes. In reference to the disambiguation I find it most probable that Jordanes is in fact speaking of one of the Theoderics in the 5.th century. I base this on what Wolfram (Die Goten, 2001) write about Jordanes, specifically the genealogy of the Goths. So this really put some focus on what timeframe the article is supposed to describe.

On the same page where Jordanes mentions Theoderic, he is also listing a lot of names, apparently habitating 'scandza', and very similar, perhaps identical, to the names listed in this article. Among the names occur 'ostrogoth', and in this article the name is followed by a parenthesis wherein it says 'Östergötland'. I seriously doubt Jordanes would agree with that. However, I have not read Jordanes, and I have no expertise on this field. Suffice to say, that this information is not something you could put under the heading 'history'. According to Wolfram's interpretation - both of the history of the Goth's in general, and in regards to the reading of Jordanes in particular - the Ostrogoths came to as an invention with the writings of Cassiodor, circa in the year 519, under the reign of the ostrogoth Theoderic the Great.

I am not quite sure how to proceed. At a superficial glance the article seems a wild goosechase, not something to follow along with, in the pursuance of historical knowledge. But the most concrete finding is the question about what timeframe the article is suggesting. ???

NB!Online translation of Jordanes Sechinsic (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(update) I must have read too fast. The intro state that the timeframe is 6.th century. I do find the article needing a serious rewrite. Most precisely said, the article puts forth a misinterpretation of Jordanes. In considerance to this, there is Wolfram, mentioned above. Secondly, there is the academic consensus, propagated by present day academic authorities, to read medieval texts as political literature, not as historical literature .(Ian N. Wood, Rosamond McKitterick, numerous authors & much literature, cf. ) But as a third point one can also observe the vagueness of the article, as notably in the intro, where it says Jordanes " account contains several accurate descriptions of Scandinavia". How can you prove that ? It is very obvious to put a here, but that would just be the beginning of a quite destructive re-editing of the article. Sechinsic (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Outdated source
Amongst the sources listed (and extensively used) is a 1925 Swedish history book. For a subject on this period in history, which is dependant on archaeology and linguistics, subjects that has seen an immense development since the 1920s, this is really an extremely outdated source. I am not well-versed in the subject myself, but perhaps this book would be relevant for this article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nerman's nationalistic way of writing history was already reactionary in 1925. Ohlmarks has no academic standing. See also Talk:Oium etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Scandza.PNG nominated for deletion
See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scandza.PNG. --141.70.13.147 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Greek sources
We want to know the actual Greek sources, not the umptieth hand later source that says they referred to Scandia. 100.15.127.199 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)