Re: German population in Europe after fall of Roman Empire.

From: Seppo Renfors (Renfors_at_not.com.au)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:16:39 GMT

Soren Larsen wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:40DFE1D5.1761879C@not.com.au
> > Inger E Johansson wrote:
> >>
>
> >
> >> Seppo,
> >> Ostrogoths have been proven beyond any reasonable doubts to origin
> >> from Ostergotland.
> >
> > The "Ostro" part of the "Goths" is said to mean "eastern" and as
> > opposed to the "Visi" or "Western" Goths.
>
> It is surely said, but it is wrong, Visi meaning 'noble' and Ostro meaning
> 'shining'.
>
> The 'east' and west' convention only entered in a period when the Visigoths
> just happened to be located West of the Ostrogoths
>
> > BOTH are a later people that
> > the single people known as "Goths".
>
> What Goths? - Tervingi or Greutungi?

What part of "Single" do you have trouble with?
>
> >
> > http://www.roangelo.net/valente/longobar.html
> > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11347d.htm
> >
> > I can't find anything that comes close to mentioning BC for Goths, and
> > Ostrogoths particularly. The very earliest arguments I can find for
> > "Goths" is them being at the Vistula at around the time of the Birth
> > of Christ but this is uncertain too. This is well before they moved
> > anywhere.
>
> You have just killed Ingers argument about them being Scandinavian :-)

Not at all. I only question the time lines as a specific people.
>
> Anyway the Goths on the Vistula is an archaeological identification
> of the Goths with the Wielbark culture. So you are damned right
> this in uncertain, since there is nada cooperation in the sources.

There is a plethora of authority on their origin from Scandinavia -
you know that too!

> > "Medieval" starts from about 500 AD. That claim of the "three ships"
> > is disputed by a number of people including Isidore of Seville. Also
> > by Arne Soby Christensen book (based on his PHD thesis), "Cassiodorus
> > Jordanes and the History of the Goths". The title is misleading.
>
> How can the title "Cassiodorus Jordanes and the History of the Goths"
> be misleading?

Well, if you cannot understand that frankly is your problem.
>
> > Cassiodorus was an Italian author who write twelve-volume history of
> > the Goths, now lost.
>
> Cassiodorus was a Roman of eastern extraction (Anthioc) who happened
> to be living in Italy. There was no such beast as an Italian at the time.
>
> If you are going to argue on the grounds of geography, then be advised
> that the Ostrogoths in living in Italy at the time also should be concidered
> Italians.

Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator (490 -> 583) is said to be
a "Roman writer" but it is ignoring his Syrian ancestry! Further more
HE was born in Scyllaceum (South Italy) which was NOT part of the
Roman empire then - remember it had collapsed.

http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/italy/bruttium.html
http://www.roangelo.net/valente/val-img/samnium.gif

I know the last one does refer to 3rd century BC map so don't get
exited - but it is a map that shows the location of Bruttium (now
Calabria) where Scyllaceum (Squillace) is located and where Flavius
Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator was born.

Further more during the reign of Julius Caesar the name "Italy"
referred, in its strictest sense, only to the southern and central
sections of the peninsula.

So next time you try to empty your "gezunder" ("chamber pot" to you)
do NOT do so into a gale!
 
>
> >It is said Jordanes condensed those 12 volumes in
> > his own works.
>
> No! That is what Jordanes says.

Aha..... so you asked him did you?

> > Still it does have support elsewhere. The arguments that they did not
> > originate from Scandza which was separated by the Baltic sea from the
> > mainland of Europe - or both sides of it, are linguistic and don't
> > have great deal of weight as they go both ways - to support and NOT
> > support..... "

[text restored above]
>
> BZZZZZT! It is the origin in Scandinavia that has to be proved.
> Not the opposite.

Why? Who says.... note: you don't count.
>
> Actually are modern lingustic the most damaging argument against
> Ingers fantasy, since nobody any longer conciders north and
> east germanic to be more closely related than west and north germanic.

Linguistics are a poor indicator as it relies VERY heavily on totally
unprovable theories. Yet at the same time linguistics are an
additional tool - but not to the elimination of all other evidence as
those hanging their hat solely on linguistic.
 
> And this is not just theories, since we can actually watch the
> seperation between north and west germanic (c 500AD) in the early
> runic inscriptions, at a point in time when east germanic had long
> since seperated from their common ancestor northwest germanic.

QUICK, patent it FAST! You claim to have a time machine! Besides that
you are talking through your hat again.
>
> So nada linguistic support for a Scandinavian origin.

THAT is a blatant LIE. Alternately you don't have much of an idea
about the different languages in Scandinavia at the time!

> > Gutthones" is claimed to appear in Greek and is the
> > claimed forerunner to the name "Goths". Only I can find no Greek text
> > mentioning "Gutthones".
>
> Pytheas through Pliny the Elder - uncertain - Otherwise Pliny's own
> writing.

Yeah? Where... what documents/books are you referring to? Perhaps you
are supporting Inger's claim of Ostrogoths existing 475 BCE? Pytrheas
after all points to c.380 - c.310 BC at least. Pliny doesn't count as
he is too late in the day to be of importance to this issue.

[..] 

-- 
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Relevant Pages