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

From: Seppo Renfors (Renfors_at_not.com.au)
Date: 07/02/04 

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:52:24 GMT

Inger E Johansson wrote:
>

[snip very interesting references]

> Some has also been found in Östergötland and in Tjust/Teuste but since
> neither of them can be found on net you will have to send me private mail
> for more information and ref.
>
> * direct contact has been shown to have existed due to two rare species.
>
> I proved this in my own C-essay. For maps showing the distribution in
> Europe(and in at least one island in the Sargasso Sea) as well as full
> proof, please send me a private mail.
>
> * Continuety in settlements, graveyards etc.
> I proved this in my own C-essay. For proof, maps showing major artifacts and
> settlements from Stone Age up to 1000 AD resp correct waterleve for the peak
> of each period, list of artifacts found etc.... Please send me a private
> mail.

You have my address already Inger, sent it to you (finally) a couple
of weeks ago.
>
> * 'a' -sound the origin 'a' sound in among other places Östergötland. Which
> show above everything else that it's almost completely impossible that a
> group ever conquered this area given the fact that the settlements and the
> graveyards have been shown to have a continuity and not show any kind of
> hard battles except from later Medieval and Modern time when twice a Danish
> army walked thru and burnt a few farms before they were thrown out.
>
> That's more to add to this. It's all in my manuscript the Gothic Mosaic.

One of the things I believe may be confusing the overall issues here
is the naming convention of a people. They are named on arrival at a
place, where their unique culture can be identified - till then they
are usually unnamed or part of some other people. They had to cross
Europe to get to Scandinavia in the first place - therefor their
language, whatever it is called, came with them. This is pure common
sense and needs no further evidence.

For some to again migrate back, obviously they also take their
language with them - they can do nothing else. Their culture and
identity as a people at that stage are "Goths" where the name
originates from "Götland", the name of their home. IF they are able to
dominate the cultures existing and impose their own on the populous of
the place they move to, they retain the name - else it changes to
another culture and name. If they then cross country that their
unnamed, or differently named ancestors have trodden centuries before,
or partly even settled doesn't make those ancestors back in time
attain the name "Goths". Only it does make it easier for the Goths to
impose their culture on a people - specially if they are the "ruling
class".

It is for this reason the first century AD is the "starting point" for
"Goths". Those on Götland couldn't retain their culture and lost it to
become Norse over the next millennia. This doesn't change the origins
of the Goths in any way. At the same time it doesn't preclude the
identification of the people TO Scandinavia in the first place - but
they were not called Goths at that time, they only became that on
arrival - it is due to that naming convention. 

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: German population in Europe after fall of Roman Empire.
    ... > Ice halted and so on. ... "The Goths" is a wrong term for the day's of the Ice age. ... culture and had the language that identifies them as "Goths". ... king after Berig and, after various adventures, arrived at the Black ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Dog leash goths hounded off bus
    ... I know goths who are in their 40s, real goths are not posers, its the ... As for the idea that tattoos are just for attention seekers - don't be ... culture, ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
Quantcast