Readings on migrations and migration theory?

[Marja]

I for one was able to read some of them, but wasn't able to download them.

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, thats some ideas i posted and i was previously criticized here i remember, that Goths appear in previous Dacian and Sarmatian teritories and are formed mostly from local Getae/Dacians with Sarmatians, Germanic and later even Roman elements.

That exactly it Razvan, some ideas. The idea that the Goths did not migrate in a 'regognisable group' from the Baltic to the Ralkans is not a partisan idea, but your addition to that, "formed mostly from local Getae/Dacians", is not quite what Kai posted!! :!:

Even the Vistula area from where some said the Goths came (but hard to impossible to prove beside Jordanes story) shows elements of Dacian/Getae presence all along, in fact the presence of Dacian nobility actually, close to the same period of appearence of Goths, which can be very well a transformation of Getae. Especially as Caracalla imposed a "damnatio memoriae" for his brother Geta (the singular for Getae) right before the first mention of "Goths" to show up in Roman writings..
This is a map with the findings of bracelets/armlets worn by Dacian nobles

As discussed before, these 'traces' tell us nothing more than cultural or trading contacts. Similar maps of Roman artefacts can be shown, also with 'high status' artifacts, and yet you can't possibly conclude that Romans did in fact live so far outside the Empire, let alone that Romans were a large ethnical part of the local groups!
That stuff about Caracalla and Geta we als discussed before, there is no corresponding proof between Geta and the first mentioning of the Goths. It's your pet project, I know. ;-)

[diegis]

To all:
I'll take chances for giving a big thank you for all involved in this interesting and lively discussion. (MORE ! ;-) )
@diegis/razvan: Thank you for bringing that linkk to my/our attention.
But honestly, I'd be more surprised if there had NOT been a cultural exchange of this sort an stature, given the importance of trade routes north-south -- in that case the "amber-road" in
its different branches. The map included here looks kind-a "Autobahn"-map to me.

Greez

Simplex

You're welcome Siggi.
And yes, i think it was an "autobahn" with some secondary "streets" and was circulated in both directions, maybe at least as much from south to north as the other way.
The problem which kinda stoped that perspective was Jordanes "Getica" in its less credible and harder (even impossible) to prove affirmation, the migration of Goths from Scandza.
Such affirmation was taken as granted even if other Jordanes affirmations about events happened later and of which he may know better and other sources may existed as well, was rejected as fabulations precisely because doesn't fit in the "origin" story.

[diegis]

Hello Robert

That exactly it Razvan, some ideas. The idea that the Goths did not migrate in a 'regognisable group' from the Baltic to the Ralkans is not a partisan idea, but your addition to that, "formed mostly from local Getae/Dacians", is not quite what Kai posted!! :!:

Well, i may push a little that idea, but i seen that Kulikowski (actually from him i take and develop the view) for example make similar afirmation, that is perfectly possible that Goths originated from local Getae/Dacian-Carpic cultures. I agree, he just say is possible and not that this is 100% sure how things was

As discussed before, these 'traces' tell us nothing more than cultural or trading contacts. Similar maps of Roman artefacts can be shown, also with 'high status' artifacts, and yet you can't possibly conclude that Romans did in fact live so far outside the Empire, let alone that Romans were a large ethnical part of the local groups!
That stuff about Caracalla and Geta we als discussed before, there is no corresponding proof between Geta and the first mentioning of the Goths. It's your pet project, I know. ;-)

Well, the Polish scholars seem pretty sure that is about actual Dacians living there, not just trade. Especially as they make an interesting mention about remains of some sanctuaries in Poland and even in Jutlanda and their origin can be traced "perhaps more convincingly" to Thraco-Dacian cultures.

As well both Agrippa (the one who made that Roman empire and world map in Augustus time) and Ptolemy later (2nd century AD) write and put on their map the presence of Dacians up to the Baltic and near Vistula, Ptolemy mentioning even few Dacian towns like Setidava. Parvan, a Romanian historian, find few others, and Schutte write about this too, considering if i remember correct that Susudava/Sousoudavta etc is a mistranslation of Setidava.

So this archeological findings actually match what Agrippa and Ptolemy (who was quite accurate in what he write or draw) said.

About Caracalla and Geta i know is my original idea but i found interesting that right after that the Romans start to mention "Goths" right in the area were before was Getae (Dacians). And this without someone can surely prove or somehow identify or trace any significant movement of people there, coming from whatever direction

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, i may push a little that idea

I agree there!

but i seen that Kulikowski (actually from him i take and develop the view) for example make similar afirmation, that is perfectly possible that Goths originated from local Getae/Dacian-Carpic cultures. I agree, he just say is possible and not that this is 100% sure how things was

The difference between Kulikowski and your ideas is that Kulikowski thinks that the 'ethnogenesis' of the Goths took place in the are where descendants of Dacians and Carpi lived (plus influences from other groups), and I can agree with that.
Your view (as often published on this forum) is that the main influence on this new group (the 'Goths') was from the Dacian part of all these groups. And that is not what Kulikowski thinks and nor do I.

Well, the Polish scholars seem pretty sure that is about actual Dacians living there, not just trade. Especially as they make an interesting mention about remains of some sanctuaries in Poland and even in Jutlanda and their origin can be traced "perhaps more convincingly" to Thraco-Dacian cultures.

If all spots from 1 to, say, 17, indeed show typical Dacian settlement remains they would have a point - but is that what they are actually saying? And even then my point of producing a similar map for 'Romans in Germany' is still be valid: how plentiful are these remains, that we should actually conclude that Dacian tribes actually lived in all the areas on that map?
Besides that 'Thraco-Dacian' is actually pretty vague, isn't it? Such a description covers much more than just 'Dacian'!

Mind you, I have been contacted by people who are going much further than you, and actually say that most legions after the Dacian Wars were Dacians.. So your ideas are not that extreme. :unsure:

So this archeological findings actually match what Agrippa and Ptolemy (who was quite accurate in what he write or draw) said.

Did you look at Agrippa's map? He did not even know there was a Baltic sea - his information was pretty vague. So no points for Agrippa.
Ptolemy - better, but still a loose collection of settlement names, some known but some unknown - and also, he had no idea what the Baltic was either. You can't site Ptolemy for 'detailed knowledge' of that area either I'm afraid.

About Caracalla and Geta i know is my original idea but i found interesting that right after that the Romans start to mention "Goths" right in the area were before was Getae (Dacians). And this without someone can surely prove or somehow identify or trace any significant movement of people there, coming from whatever direction

Well, your point was that the damnatio memoriae of Geta had a direct connection with the appearance of the name 'Goth', and that, hence, the name of Geta and the newly named tribe must have had a connection. That ancient writers could and did confuse the old getae with the new Goths I can well imagine, but that this coincidence proves that the old Getae are the new Goths is unproven in my opinion, at least so far.

[Marja]

Having read some of Halsall's essays, I'm getting the impression that:

1. It's rarely possible to identify migration archaeologically, and often problematic historically.

2. Migration can be part of an explanation of social change, but it's never the whole explanation. Migrants are usually a minority of the people in the areas they arrive in. So there are a lot of questions about why and how each group influences and/or sometimes assimilates the other group.

3. Elite dominance is important, but it can't explain everything. It seems like a good fit for the Alanic-Vandal conquest of North Africa, but a bad fit for the Slavic settlement of central European highlands.

4. Sometimes it's important to examine migration in and of itself, instead of focusing on migration as an explanation for some larger event. I think both proponents and opponents are too quick to judge migration theory by its ability or inability to explain social change.

[Robert Vermaat]

Elite dominance is important, but it can't explain everything. It seems like a good fit for the Alanic-Vandal conquest of North Africa, but a bad fit for the Slavic settlement of central European highlands.

I agree. Having watched the BBC-series 'The Dark Ages' I found myself very irritated about the tone of the show. All very 19th-century in it's approach: migration maps and ox-trek stories. grmbll..
Apart from that, although I like the approach that 'the barbarians' were not fur-clad semi-naked savages, the presenter went overboard when attriobuting all kinds of develepments in art and architecture to the Huns, Vandals and Goths. Whereas it was clear (I hope!) that they stood on the shoulders of Roman society..

[Marja]

Slightly off-topic, but can anyone recommend any scholarly sources on the supposed Gothic episcopal see by the later palace of Omurtag? Apparently the main work is by Balabanov and Stoeva, but I can't begin to track it down.

[Robert Vermaat]

Slightly??

[Marja]

Well, despite my reservations about confusing migrations and the effects of migrations, I think that under some circumstances, the presence of distinct minority settlements can be evidence for migration - although assimilation one way or the other usually means these distinct minority settlements are too rare or too common to give a good idea of the numbers of migrants involved.

[Agricola]

Thank you! Unfortunately I don't have a Facebook account.

[aligern]

Might I take issue with he idea that Peter Heather is somehow in a minority of old fashioned thinkers on this topic. We might conceptualise the views of his immobiliarist opponents as being very much concerned with saying something different and perhaps thus getting publicity. After all, who is going to be made a professor or sell books from a view that the people who wrote in the 50s of the last century were right. Historical exploration proceeds from revision and sometimes the revisions bring more truth.
Where those who believe in the Goths forming from Dacians have a problem is that the Goths , when they emerge are not Dacians. Dacia has been occupied by the Romans for 150 years and the surrounding Dacians such as the the Carpi are identified as separate by classical writers. The Goths appear to have a Germanic language and do have an ethnic consciousness. Amory's attempt to describe the 'Ostrogoths' in Italy as just a Roman army with no women has been destroyed by Heather who shows that these people had wagons and families and priests, a social structure and a language that distinguished them. That they are not speaking some 'Balkan military patois' is well shown in a siege where Belisarius gets a Goth in his army hailing from Thrace to talk to his fellow Goths on the walls, If the Ostrogoths were just a Roman army then lots of officers from Thrace or Illyria would have been able to talk to the Goths.
I worry that all these deniers of migration have , to a degree, a political agenda. They are concerned that the Nazis used Germanic migrations to justify conquering areas of Europe that Germans had once ruled. I am pretty sure that that historical interpretation is dead now and that no one would really attempt to promote ideas of racial heritage or purity through Dark Age or Migration Age history. Introducing a bias to the history on the basis of combatting a dead ideology is wrong.
What Marja raised earlier is the important point of the comparative history of migrations. Why is migration from the inner Germany or Baltic to the Mediterranean or Black Sea suddenly so unbelievable in the 2nd century AD when it is entirely credible that
1) The Gauls and Galatians do it 5th-3rd century BC
2) The Cimbri and Teutones do it in the 2nd century BC
3) The Suebi and allies under Ariovistus manage it in the 1st century BC.
4 The Marcommani attempt it in the 1st century AD.
All these and other examples show that there is a regular route from the cold dark North to the warm, sunny South for barbarian peoples. Against this context the migrations of the Goths, Vandals, Heruls, Lombards are normal and not unusual. We should also remember the Bastarnae, a Germano- Celtic people that had migrated down to the lower Danube, probably in the 3rd to 2nd century BC.
I have no doubt that peoples get incorporated as new elites move in, but these elites are large and homogeneous, they are not a few aristocrats. The structure of Gothic society with nobles, a large group of free men and the half free and then slaves suggests that the core group is, as identified by Peter Heather, the optimates or free men and that this group is self conscious and unified and maintains the fight in Italy until the bitter end.
Of course those who believe that the Goths form on the spot, next the frontier will say that it is conscious ethnogenesis by the Amal Theoderic that builds this nation. Whilst they are not wrong about him taking steps to buttress Gothic nationality, it would be wrong to suggest that it is a Vth and VIth century construct. That is because Theoderic can take over Strabo's group in the Balkans in the 480s precisely because they are all Goths and already have a common identity.
Lastly, let us look at another group making the same journey, the Vikings and Rus. They trade down the great rivers and launch raids against Constantinople. they even make the Caspian . It is obviously very easy to follow the river system and settle along it , the geography favours these migrations.
Roy Boss

[Marja]

Hi,

I'm going to bump this topic because I've been going over Caesar's Gallic campaigns. His first campaign supposedly begins with a migration of the Helvetii, but his account seems quite implausible. He has the whole tribe migrate, before the harvest, after the death of the main leader of the pro-migration faction. I'm not aware of any cases of such large groups migrating - at most part of such large groups.

Is anyone aware of studies of what proportion of an agricultural community might migrate together? and of the size constraints? Either in the Caesarian model where the whole tribe migrates, or an alternate one where there is civil strife and members and associates of a defeated faction migrate?

[Marja]

For that matter, can anyone suggest sources on the archaeology of late pre-Roman Helvetia and Rauracia?

Caesar's story is highly implausible, but his story - and some alternatives to it - would imply destruction layers in most Helvetic sites.

[Robert Vermaat]

Caesar's story is highly implausible, but his story - and some alternatives to it - would imply destruction layers in most Helvetic sites.

Would it? The Helvetians returned to their deserted homeland did they not?