origin of the Goths

[Frostwulf]

Origin of the Goths

The object of this thread is to show the theories of the origins of the Goths, not what they were to become, but where they came from.
What I hope to obtain on this thread is a fleshing out on some of the theories as I have very little information on some of them nor do I have the time to continue my search for information. I’m hoping to fill in the gaps with professional opinion, but unfortunately I’m sure we will see mostly personal opinion.

Taken on purely archaeological grounds, without reference to our one piece of textual evidence, there is no reason to interpret the Wielbark and the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov cultures as close cousins. The Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture represents an intermingling of many different earlier material cultures, some native to its zone, others not. One might argue, as most do, that the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture came into being because of a migration out of the Wielbark regions, but one might equally argue that it was an indigenous development of local Pontic, Carpic and Dacian cultures or of the migration of steppe nomads from the east meeting Przeworsk-cultural elements are no more numerous in the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture than are the many other cultural traditions that make it up. It is only the text of Jordanes that leads scholars to privilege the Wielbark connection. Indeed, if Jordanes did not exist and we were dealing with truly prehistoric cultures, it is highly unlikely that anyone would draw the same connection. Pg.67

1.Pontic/Dacian(Carpic) theory:
The Goths originated from Dacian(Carpic) and or Pontic peoples.

Main proponents:
Unknown, but Palade and Mircue propose that the local Dacian/Pontic cultures created the Cernjakov culture.

Written,Etymological and Philological evidence:
The written evidence in the Historiae Augususta: <<It is not out of place to include a certain gibe that was uttered at his expense. For when he assumed the surnames Germanicus, Parthicus, Arabicus, and Alamannicus (for he conquered the Alamanni too), Helvius Pertinax, the son of Pertinax, said to him in jest, so it is related, "Add to the others, please, that of Geticus Maximus also"; for he had slain his brother Geta, and Getae is a name for the Goths, whom he conquered, while on his way to the East, in a series of skirmishes>>

Many authors have equated the Goths with the Getae, the vast majority of them after Jerome had made his statement: “all earlier scholars had called the Goths Getae rather than Gog and Magog”
The possible earliest would be from Ausonius writen around 379 A.D.

Evidence against:
For the Histoiae Augusta:

The thing could not be achieved without the lavish use of fiction. No drawback. That was his bent and delight. Creative writing, not compilation. pg.70

Many others say the same thing, such as Grant, Kulikowski, etc. and:

But the extract is from the Historia Augusta, whose testimony is always problematic. Although it contains much historical information, particularly when dealing with the more distant, second century, past, the text is in overall terms a fake: a creation of c.400 AD, written in Rome probably by someone of senatorial rank, masquerading as one of c.300 pg.99

Not to mention Syme once again:

The search for facts leaves little leisure for the study of 'invention', in either sense of the term. The biographies have seldom elicited praise for any literary qualities. Marred both by abridgement and by additions, the main Vitae down to Caracalla are unlovely products; the treatment in the Elagabalus and the Alexander is untidy and diversely repellent; and fatigue grows with the next section where the events of the year 238 are retold several times. pg249

For Jerome:

Jerome then introduced as an “antidote” the assertion that “all earlier scholars had called the Goths Getae rather than Gog and Magog”. Pg.28

http://books.google.com/books?id=xsQxcJv...CBgQ6AEwAQ

http://books.google.com/books?id=AcLDHOq...CBUQ6AEwAA

.....so it's not fair to say that he seems particularly inspired by his own hypothesis. pg.51

Ausonius appears to have written something about the Goths being Getae, but I haven’t had to much time to research it. I find it hard to believe that so many authors would have missed Ausonius, and there could be reasons such as artistic licence(as on some of his other writings), wrong date on document, misunderstood situation etc. etc.

For equating Goths with Getae:
Prior to equating the Goths with the Getae they were called Scythians.

To the Greek authors who wrote about them, the Goths were 'Scythians' and that is the name used almost without exception to describe them. pg14-15

But more to the point is this:

And so the Goths, when they first appear in our written sources, are Scythians - they lived where the Scythians had once lived, they were the barbarian mirror image of the civilized Greek world as the Scythians had been, and so they were themselves Scythians. pg15

It is when the Goths move into the areas that were formally that of the Getae, that their name begins to change to that of the Getae. Just like the name Scythian was applied to the Goths when in the territory of the former Scythians, the same thing happened when they entered the area of the Getae.

Lactantius (early Christian author 240 – 320 AD) about the Getae belief in Zalmoxis provide an approximate translation of Julian the Apostate writing, who put these words in [emperor] Traian's mouth:

We have conquered even these Getai ( Dacians ), the most warlike of all people that have ever existed, not only because of the strength in their bodies, but, also due to the teachings of Zalmoxis who is among their most hailed. He has told them that in their hearts they do not die, but change their location and, due to this, they go to their deaths happier than on any other journey."

He speaks of the Getae here, but in the quote below he speaks of the Goths:

Accordingly he says in a letter: At present the Scythians 1 are not restless, but perhaps they will become restless.

1 In 360 Constantius bribed the Scythians to aid him in his campaign against the Persians (Ammianus 20. 8. 1), and in 363 Julian employed Scythian auxiliaries for the same purpose (Ammianus 23. 2. 7). It is uncertain to which of these dates the fragment refers; Eunapius quotes this remark as evidence of Julian's foresight.

The Goths are Scythians to Julian, not just here but also in his other writings. The Getae on the other hand are not Goths, he clearly makes a distinction!

Lactantius also talks of the Carpi in chapter 4, yet in chapter 13 he mentions the Goths, therefore differentiating the two peoples. This of course is not differentiating between Goths and Getae, but he is the one who mentions Justinian, and this could not have passed unnoticed. I do believe he see’s a difference between the Goths and the Getae.

Eusebius also makes a difference in his writings in the Oratio of Constantine where he places the Getae in on part and talks of the Goths (Scythians) in another. Also check on the section that covers common evidence in theories 3-5.


Philological/Etymological:
None that support this theory. For what would be in opposition see the section of common evidence in theories 3-5.


Archaeological evidence:

As for methods of production, great stress has been placed on the evidence of pottery, with its heavy dependence on indigenous forms and techniques, to argue that it shows the local Daco-Getans to have played a leading role in the creation of the Culture, and to have been present on most sites (the pottery is found everywhere). Pg.96

http://books.google.ro/books?id=m8p4SxNN...e&q&f=true
On pg. 54 of the above book it talks of the types of housing and how they are somewhat divided in different areas. The North Pontic region still had it’s own type of housing and the “Germanic” style of housing was not found in Romania or southern USSR.



Counter archaeological evidence:

As for methods of production, great stress has been placed on the evidence of pottery, with its heavy dependence on indigenous forms and techniques, to argue that it shows the local Daco-Getans to have played a leading role in the creation of the Culture, and to have been present on most sites (the pottery is found everywhere). But while there is no doubting the origins of the pottery, it was certainly used by Germanic Goths. The usual pottery was discovered, for instance, alongside the rune-inscribed spindle whorl of Letcani grave 36, which must surely be that of a Goth. It is also hard to see why potters among the Gothic immigrants should not have been able to learn the superior techniques practiced by the people with whom they had now come into contact. In any case, it is perhaps dangerous to be too insistent on the non-Germanic nature of pottery forms. A wide and shallow (drinking?) bowl, similar to the wheel-made one so common in Sintana de Mures/Cernajachove Culture, but made by hand, is a common element of the Wielbark Culture. Pg.96

Furthermore on this subject:

The Getic fortified settlemens (davae) to the south and southe-west survived, while those to the north (Stincesti, Cotnari) were apparently destroyed by the Bastarnae. It has also been established that the Bastarnae used Geto-Dacian pottery, which has been found on Bastarnian sites at Botosana, Lunca Ciurei, Tirpesti and elsewhere. Pg.48

The Bastarnae also used Geto-Dacian pottery, yet they are considered Germanic.

On the housing aspect Heather points out the introduction of the “Germanic” housing and the military dominance of the Goths.

2. Kulikowski theory:

The most plausible explanation of this evidence is to see one group among the many different barbarians north of the Black Sea establishing its hegemony over the scattered and hitherto disparate population of the region, which was thereafter regularly identified as Gothic by Graeco-Roman observers. Pg.67-68

Main proponents:
Michael Kulikowski

Written, Etymological and Philogical evidence:

The answer, at least in my view, is that there is no Gothic history before the third century. The Goths are a product of the Roman frontier, just like the Franks and the Alamanni who appear at the same time. That is clearly demonstrated by contemporary literary evidence, and indeed all the evidence of the fourth and fifth centuries - everything except Jordanes. In the their century, the Roman empire was assaulted from the regions north of the Danube and the Black Sea by large numbers of different barbarian groups, among whom Goths appear for the first time. Not long thereafter, the Goths are clearly the most powerful group in the region, while most of the other barbarian groups with whom they appear in the third century either disappear from the record or are clearly subordinated to them. The most plausible explanation of this evidence is to see one group among many different barbarians north of the Black Sea establishing its hegemony over the scattered and hitherto disparate population of the region, which was thereafter regularly identified as Gothic by Graeco-Roman observers. Pg.67-68

He doesn’t point to any directly, but Peter Heather says this in response to Kulikowski on the sociopolitical reorganization among the region’s existing population and on the credibility of Jordanes:

Two elements of the argument are convincing. First, there’s not the slightest doubt that socioeconomic and political reorganization-‘development’- were an important dimension of the story. Pg.113

Second, Kulikowski is right enough that little reliance can be placed on Jordanes. Jordanes was writing three hundred years after the event and can be shown to have produced a completely anachronistic view of the Gothic world of the fourth century, on which more in a moment. Pg.114

Archaeological evidence:
[spoiler]

The archaeological evidence of the Santa-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture makes sense in these terms as well. The rise to prominence of a few strong leaders created a stable political zone in which a single material culture came into being, synthesized from a variety of disparate traditions. None was more important than the others - as the material evidence clearly shows - and there is no need to look for ‘original’ Goths coming from elsewhere to impose their leadership and their identity on others. There were, of course, immigrants into the regions where the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture arose, from elsewhere in northern and central Europe and from the steppe lands to the east as well. But none of them need themselves have been Goths, because there is no good evidence that Goths existed before the third century. Pg 67-68

Once again nothing direct and ambiguous.

Evidence against: Only what the others have going for them(i.e. Wielbark, Scandinavia, etc.)


For theories 3-5 they share some common pieces of evidence:

Written, Etymological and Philological evidence:

Michael Kulikowski-“Rome’s Gothic Wars”In the Gothic kingdoms of the fifth and sixth centuries, this Gothic Bible was the basic text for the homoean liturgy, and fragments of the Gothic Bible have been transmitted to us from many different sources. Almost all of these remains come from the New Testament, while only small fragments of the Old Testament texts still survive. These biblical texts, however, are the earliest substantial evidence we possess for the morphology and vocabulary of a Germanic language, and are thus of priceless value to modern philologists. Pg110

The sudden dominance of Goths and other Germanic-speakers in the region represented, therefore, a major cultural shift. And there is no doubt that the new masters of the landscape were Germanic-speakers. Pg.114

However, the Goths clearly spoke an east Germanic language, preserved in their apostle Wulfila’s translation of the Gospels and other texts. Their personal names are Germanic and runes are known from the Cernjacov area. This probably implies some migration into the region (although there were people regarded as ‘Germanic’ in the region before), probably during the third century, when imperial sources first attest the Goths north of the Danube. Pg.132-134

The Tervingi are the “forest people” and the Greutungi the “dwellers of the steppes and pebbly coasts.” pg.25

Language probably made a difference, and when Gothic was codified as a written religious language in the fourth century, the use of the Gothic bible will surely have identified its user as a Goth as well as a Christian. But languages can be acquired and many of the philologically Germanic languages spoken in central Europe were mutually intelligible. Pg68

If ‘Goth’ was the only Germanic group name from north-central Europe to shift its location in these years, you might get away with the argument that it’s a case of accidental resemblance, but, as we have just seen, it isn’t only ‘Goth’. This being so, there is no reason not to accept what the historical evidence is prima facie telling us. Pg.116

But the philologist St. Jerome must have known that the Goths spoke a Germanic language, as can be seen from his correspondence with Sunnia and Fretela (see n.241) pg.397

These are the modern authors who point to the language of the Goths being “Germanic”. For the classical authors:
Strabo book 7 1.1-1.3,
Pliny the Elder

There are five German races; the Vandili, parts of whom are the Burgundiones, the Varini, the Carini, and the Gutones: chpt. 28

Ptolemy 3 5,8
Tacitus

Beyond the Ligii are the Gothones, who are ruled by kings, a little more strictly than the other German tribes, but not as yet inconsistently with freedom. 44.1

And of course St.Jerome as mentioned above.

Evidence against: Why were they not called Germani after Ptolemy(that is up to and possibly prior to Paul the Deacon)? They were called Scythians and Getae by numerous classical authors.


Archaeological evidence:

Studies carried out since the second world war into the Sintana de Mures culture on the territory of Romania have led to the conclusions of great interest, detailed analysis of the material recovered in the excavations of the last 25 or 30 years having shown that this culture must be attributed to peoples of Germanic origin, and specifically to the Goths. Pg.105

As soon as the first Cernjachov materials were recovered in 1906, their obvious similarities to characteristically Germanic materials from north-central Europe, especially in terms of metalwork, were duly spotted, long before the Wielbark system had been identified. Pg.118

Evidence against:What the other theories have in favor for them.


3.Przeworsk-Sarmatian theory:
Main proponents: ?(just saw that Kulikowski mentioned this and was hoping someone would know more about it.)
Written, Etymological and Philological evidence: As above, but one thing that is different is that the Goths did live among/close to the Vandals.

Archaeological evidence:

East of the Carpathians, a few cemeteries have been unearthed from the early Cernjachov era -Cozia-Iasi, Todireni and Braniste - where, contrary to normal Cernjachov and Wielbark practice, the dead were buried with weapons. All the other equipment found would suggest the groups interred in these cemeteries were Germanic intruders from the north. The presence of weapons, however, suggests that they originated somewhere outside the Wielbark system, probably from within Przeworsk areas further to the south. Pg.126

4. Scandinavian theory (A/B):

Main Proponent:
Theory A: Herwig Wolfram

Does this mean, after all, that the Goths originated in Scandinavia? Reinhard Wenskus has already given an answer, which ought to be slightly modified: not entire peoples but small successful clans, the bearers of prestigious traditions, emigrated and became the founders of new gentes. In this sense it is possible that a group of Gutae, which the Gothic memoria identified with King Berig and his followers, left Scandinavia long before the Amali and contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Gutones in East Pomerania-Masovia. Pg.49-40

Theory B: Jan Czarnecki

The Gothic emigration started approximately at the middle of the first century B.C. and was completed at the beginning of our era, after a large part of the tribe had settled in the region of the Middle Oder, while the other part remained in Sweden and was still living there in the second century. The Goths of the Oder region became subject to Maroboduus’ rule shortly after 1 A.D., and this relationship continued for about twenty years. Their stay in the Oder region is confirmed by a historical analysis of the texts of Strabo, Pliny, and Tacitus. Ptolemy mentions the Goths in another place, namely on the Lower Vistula among the “smaller peoples” of European Sarmatia. Analysis of his data revealed that this tribal territory lay between the estuary of the Narew and the space along the Gulf of Danzig which was occupied by some Venedian tribes. There are no traces of Goths living in the oder region in the second century. It was concluded, therefore, that shortly after 98 A.D. the Goths had moved from the Middle Oder to th Lower Vistual, where they remained for about seventy years. Sometime after 150 A.D. they started to drift slowly toward the Black Sea using the trade routes along the Vistula and the Bug. Pg.136

Written, Etymological and Philological evidence:

It may be that Cassiodorus, as he himself claims, “gained from reading historical sources a knowledge, notitia, that even the white-haired elders [of the Goths] barely remembered,” yet in writing his Amal Gothic history he nevertheless relied also on “songs and stories,” carmina, cantus Maiorum, fabulae. Pg.30

But of greater historical importance than etymology is the linguistic insight that “the tribal name Goths means the same as Gauts.” So why not end the fruitless quarrels and “believe” Theodoric the Great, who derives his origins and those of his Goths from Scandinavia.? Pg.21

The archaeological theory of the original homeland of the Goths in Sweden gains some support from linguistic evidence provided by the etymology of their tribal name and its various forms recorded in several places by ancient and early medieval writers. In the Gothic language, their name was Guthiuda, ‘the people of the Gut’; the root gut is derived from the Gothic ‘to flow, to flood’, a root present in a river name, Gautelfr (Gota River, Swedish Gota alv), a river flowing through Vastergoland. Their tribal name simply meant ‘the people liveing near the Gautelfr’. Strabo’s text reads Butonas, but scholars generally accept the corrected form Gutonas. Pliny speaks of Gutones (variants: Gu///nes, Gniounes, Guttones). He also mentions a river Guthalus (varianes: Gythalus, Gothalus, Guttalus, Lutta Alus). Tacitus calls them Gotones (variant: Gothones). Ptolemy records Gutai (variants: Gautai, Utoi, Dutai) in Scandinavia and Gythones in European Sarmatia. Procopius of Caesarea records Gautai in Scandinavia. Jordanes uses the form Gothi. In later medieval times, Gotland was described as inhabited by the Gutar or Gautar. Pg.14

The Goths did not originate in this area. Strabo Pliny, Tacitus, and Ptolemy mention them in almost the same fashion - as an average tribe or a small people. No extraordinary achievements or deeds are recorded as performed by them. This indicates that the Goths maintained a similar status from abut 6 to 150 A.D. Apparently, there were no changes before 6 A.D. either, which means that prior to their arrival in the Oder-Vistula region they had existed as a tribe or tribal unit, and were not aboriginal in that area. Pg12-13

There is a general agreement among scholars that the Goths belonged to the so-called East-Germanic group, and that the homeland of most of the peoples belonging to this group was either Scandinavia or Jutland, which implies that the Goths were not aboriginal in the Oder-Vistula region. Pg.12-13

Evidence against:

There may even be an explanation for the idea of Scandinavian Goths. A Scandinavian tribe called the Goutai are already mentioned in Ptolemy’s Geography of the second century AD (2.11.16). Both the ‘Gothic’ names in the Getica and also the supposed modern Gothic survivals (Gotland etc.) all correspond to the territory of this people. They are the Geats of Beowulf, and their subsequent history is known from medieval sources. It is not at all clear, however, that they were really Scandinavian Goths, directly connected to the groups which concern ushere, rather than a quite separate population group with a not dissimilar name. The early Scandinavian stone circles, for instance, are not found in the areas of Sweden that the Goutai dominated. And even if we beg this question, and assume for a moment that these people were ‘our’ Goths, this still does not prove that Scandinavia was the original Gothic homeland. Pg27

Archaeological evidence:

During this period, some grave structures and objects demonstrate cultural contacts between Scandinavia and the Wielbark culture in Poland. Such finds have traditionally been connected with Jordaneś Getica, and its account of a migration of Gothic people from Scandinavia. In modern research, the theory of a massive migration has generally been abandoned. The Wielbark culture is generally believed to have developed from earlier cultures in the same area. Research of recent years have more often focused on questions regarding a Gothic identification with a Nordic origin, as possibly invented during the 4th century or as a genuine tradition in the form of a myth. However, this does not explain archaeological evidence for contacts during earlier periods. A reasonable explanation for similarities in the material cultures can be that they are products of long-term contacts, perhaps originating in connections between the Lusatian culture and other urnfield groups on the continent and eastern Scandinavia already during the Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age.

Evidence against:

By about 1950, the so-called ‘Gotho-Gepidan’ culture was held to be identifiable on the basis of seven elements: inhumation burial (rather than cremation), a lack of weapons in graves, the use of stone circles and stelae (standing stones) in cemeteries, pear-shaped metal pendants, serpent-headed bracelets, S-shaped clasps and a particular type of pottery decoration which combined roughening with polishing.
Unfortunately, this easy correspondence between literary sources and archaeological remains was illusory. Leaving aside for the moment any other question, the seven ‘Gothic elements’ could prove that the Goths originated in Scandinavia, only if the European examples were later in date than those found in Scandinavia. The artefacts and customs must themselves have originated in Scandinavia if the argument was to work. For the most part, this has proved not to be the case. The earliest examples of stone circles in cemeteries are found in Scandinavia, but the other six elements of the Gotho-Gepidan culture all originated south of the Baltic. Pg.13-14

First the stone circles do not appear among the earliest Wielbark cemeteries. These can be dated B1b (early to mid-first century AD), while the stone circles are found only in cemeteries of the period B2 ©. AD 100 or later). Pg.25

5.Wielbark theory:

Main Proponent:
Peter Heather

In the period of Dacian and Sarmatian dominance, groups known as Goths - or perhaps ‘Gothones’ or ‘Guthones’ - inhabited lands far to the north-west, beside the Baltic. Tacitus placed them there at the end of the first century AD, and Ptolemy did likewise in the middle of the second, the latter explicitly among a number of groups said to inhabit the mouth of the River Vistula. Philologists have no doubt, despite the varying transliterations into Greek and Latin, that it is the same group name that suddenly shifted its epicentre from northern Poland to the Black Sea in the third century. Nor was it the only group name to do so at this time. Goths get pride of place in our sources and in scholarly discussion, but other Germanic groups participated in the action too. We have already encountered the Heruli, and late third and early fourth-century sources record the presence in and around the Carpathians, in addition, of the Germanic-speaking Gepids, Vandals, Taifali and Rugi. The Rugi, like the Goths, had occupied part of the Baltic littoral in the time of Tacitus, and the likeliest location for the Vandals in the same period is north-central Poland, towards the Pontus. Pg.115

Written, Etymological and Philological evidence:

Strabo’s Goths ought to be placed near Bohemia; Pliny’s between the Elbe and the Oder; tacitus’ between Pomerania and Lusatia or Silesia. These three locations are different descriptions of the same area, namely the region of the Middle Oder. It is unlikely that three different peoples with names so similar lived in close proximity to each other. They must have been one and the same people. The three authors mentioned above described situations and facts pertaining to the first century of our era (from about 6 or 18 A.D. to 98 A.D.). Ptolemy, whose work was written in about 150 A.D., knows of the existence of Goths in Scandinavia and at the lower Vistula. He does not record any Goths near the Middle Oder. The conclusion is obvious: the same people who during the first century of our era lived near the Middle Oder, moved to the Lower Vistula sometime after 98 A.D. Archaeologists estimate the time of the Gothic emigration from Sweden as having taken place at the beginning of our era or somewhat earlier. This is only a decade or two before they are known from historical sources. These data combined indicate that the chronological sequence of the abodes of the Goths was Sweden-Middle Oder-Lower Vistula. Pg.15

Tacitus’ concept of the eastern border of the country is of extreme interest. In his opinion, it was not the Vistula that seperated Germania from Sarmatia, but “mutual fear or mountains” separated the Germani from the Sarmatians and Dacians. These are the words of an ancient scholar who was concerned with the description of human groups, and not geographical spaces. Pg.19

However, the Goths clearly spoke an east Germanic language, preserved in their apostle Wulfila’s translation of the Gospels and other texts. Their personal names are Germanic and runes are known from the Cernjacov area. This probably implies some migration into the region (although there were people regarded as ‘Germanic’ in the region before), probably during the third century, when imperial sources first attest the Goths north of the Danube. Where these newcomers came from cannot now be ascertained but the territory of the Wielbark culture is probable, though not on the basis of the archaeological evidence, as just discussed. A key trade artery between Scandinavia and the Black Sea was the amber route that passed up the rivers flowing into the Baltic and then down the Dniepr or Dniester. Indeed most of the Cernachov sites are clustered along these two rivers and it was via this trade route that Cernjachov glass spread to the Baltic. Similarly the expansion of the Wielbark culture took place along this artery. Political authority in barbaricum often spread up and down these important routes, probably on the basis of the power that their control bestowed. It seems most likely that in the confusion of the third century and, specifically, the Roman abandonment of the Carpathian basin a Germanic-speaking military elite was able to spread its power down the amber routes into the lands of the Sarmatians, Dacians and Carpi and found a number of kingdoms, some grouped into a powerful confederacy. Much later on, Scandinavian settlers created various polities including and important realm in Kiev in the same general region and in much the same way. Pg. 132-134

This interim conclusion is only strengthened by two broader aspects of the historical evidence. First, the rise of Gothic power north of the Black Sea eventually led some indigenous groups to evacuate the region entirely. As we shall soon see in more detail, large numbers of Dacian-speaking Carpi (but not all of them) from the Carpathian foothills were admitted into the Roman Empire in the twenty-five years or so after 290 AD. An increased level of competition between groups already indigenous to the region might conceivably have generated such an exodus, but it is much more consistent with the after-effects of substantial Germanic immigration. Second, the new Gothic populations of the region remained highly mobile, even after moving into the plains south and east of the Carpathians following the exodus of the Carpi. Pg.116

Evidence against:
Kulikowski in his notes states something along the lines that if not for Jordanes then philologists would not have considered the Gotones to be Goths.

Archaeological evidence:

First, Wielbark sites increase in density in the first two centuries AD, and then become much sparser in their old Pomeranian heartlands in the third and fourth centuries (figure2.4). Secondly, Wielbark elements found in the Cernjachov culture are both numerous and distinctive, reflecting a transfer not just of certain objects but of basic beliefs and norms. Thirdly, as we will consider in more detail later, literary sources confirm that groups of people called or calling themselves Goths moved from Poland to the Black Sea, at exactly the same time as the Wielbark culture spread south and made its contribution to the Cernajachov. Pg.23

Archaeologically, we have also seen that settlement density grew substantially in the original Wielbark areas in the first and second centuries (figure2.6). This led to the colonization of new territories, and probably also to pressure on some of the surrounding Przeworsk groups to adapt to Wielbark ways. The evidence for the creation of the Cernjachov culture is similar. The established order of the eastern Carpathian and northern Black Sea regions was overthrown. Groups such as the Carpi lost out in the processes which, as we have just seen, resulted in population displacement. Likewise, the striking Wilbark contribution to the Cernjachov culture, and the seemingly substantial involvement of Wielbark females, all argue that migration in a more traditional sense played some part. Pg.48-49

A ribbon of Wielbark cemeteries of more or less the right date has been traced south along the upper reaches of the River Vistula, and then on to the Upper Dniester (Map 6). These certainly tie in chronologically with the sudden appearance of Gothic attackers outside the walls of Histria in 238 Pg.117.

The earlier - Wielbark-Lubowidz - took shape in the middle of the first century AD (phase B1b) in Pomerania and lands either side of the lower Vistula. Again, this is the broad area where our few literary sources place a group called Goths at this time. In the second and third centuries, however, artefacts and customs typical of the culture in its second phase - Wielbark-Cecele - spread over a much wider area (figure 2.3, 2.4). Expansion first encompassed northern greater Poland and Mazovia east of the river Vistula in the phase B2-B2/C1 (=c.AD 160-210). Slightly later, the same kind of material remains spread south along the Vistula and the rivers San and Bug into Byelorussia, Volhynia and the norther Ukraine (phase B2/C1-C1a = c.AD 180-230).
The Wielbark culture thus spread into the precise geographical milieu where the Cernjachov culture was to form, in the period immediately before the latter’s generation. Leterary sources, similarly, report the presence of Goths in the right areas at the appropriate times, suggesting an association of Goths with both sets of remains. More than that, certain distinctive elements of the Wielbark culture are also prominent in the remains of the Cernjachov. Pg.21-21

But in the case under discussion, in fact, the archaeological evidence suggesting migration is far from insubstantial. This in not just my opinion, I hasten to add, but also the unanimous verdict of the experts who have been working in detail on the materials in the last generation. It’s also worth emphasaizing that these experts have no ideological axes to grind. The two most influential figures here are Kazimierz Godlowski and Mark Shchuking, the former Polish, and the latter Russian. Both had to fight hard battles in their early years against one party intellectual establishments that were deeply committed to point of view different from their own. Pg.120

Evidence against:

The Cerjachov culture is a mixture of all sorts of influences but most come from the existing cultures in the region. It has been argued that it evolves directly from the Wielbark culture of the lower Vistula and that the spread from Wielbark to Cernjachov is archaeological proof of the Goths’ migration from the shores of the Baltic. This notion should not be entirely rejected but it needs considerable modification. The source for the Gothic migration from Scandinavia is Jordanes’ Getica, which is deeply problematic and certainly cannot be used as evidence for migration. The Wielbark culture begins earlier than the Cernjachov but its later phases cover the same period as the latter. There is thus no chronological development from one to the other. Furthermore, although the Wielbark culture does spread up the Vistula during its history, its geographical overlap with the Cernjachov culture is minimal. These facts make it improbable that the Cernjachov culture was descended from the Wielbark. Although it is often claimed that Cernjachov metalwork derives from Wielbark types, close examination reveals no more than a few types with general similarities to Wielbark analogues. Migration from the Wielbark territories is also proposed from the supposedly distinctive mix of cremation and inhumation. However, burial customs are rarely static and more than one area of barbaricum employed, at various times, a mixture of rites. The fourth century, in particular, saw widespread change in such practices. This evidence will not support the idea of substantial migration. Pg.132-134

Pg.64 Weilbark elements no more numerous then other elements. Connection is not as great as usually asserted. Weapon burials are absent in Weilbark but rare in the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov zones. In purely logical terms , a negative characteristic is less convincing proof of similarity than a positive one....

There may have been emblematic clothing that established insider and outsider status. But that does not mean we can construct a Gothic costume on the basis of grave finds, because in most circumstances, these items were displayed to other Goths and communicated information about status within the community, not about relations to those outside it. Pg.68

[diegis]

Salve Frostwulf

I know you already know my opinion on this. I think Goths was a Getae/Dacian people, on which was added in time Germanic, Sarmatian and then even Roman elements.

Thraco-Dacians has spread anyway up north since the end of Bronze Age, and not just North, but in all cardinal points. Before the migration of Celts, Greeks, Iranics or even Romans and then Germanics, it was a Thracian migration, started from lower Danube area, sometimes around the 1300 -1000 BC.

We have so in Egeea Sea island names as Samos, SamoThrace and Karpatos (Samus is the ancient name of a Dacian river from Transylvania, called Somes today, and the relation between Carpathians and Karpatos is obvious, same the name Thrace with Thracians).
Even Sparta is a Thracian name (see Spartacus and other related Thracian names), and i think at the beginning Spartans was just a Thracian elite established there, and who was completely hellenized later.

A second Getian invasion wave toward Germanic teritories had place under Burebista, under advice of High Priest Deceneus, the second in command.
Agrippa gives the Dacia border as going along the Vistula, up to the Ocean (meaning the Baltic Sea), for I century BC - I century AD. This was confirmed in most part by Ptolemy, for II century AD. Both Schutte and Parvan mention Dacian towns/fortresses there, took from Ptolemy map, some east of Vistula (today Poland), some even west of Vistula (even today Germany).

An interesting thing comes from Germanic mythology, and is related with the end of gods and the world in their myths. This end is bring by a giant snake, Jorgmandur (something like that, sorry if i misspelled the name), and 3 wolves. This will kill the gods, and the wolves will eat as well the Sun and the Moon.

However, the Dacian battle flag, called "draco" by Romans, is made up by a serpent like body, having a wolf head (bracelets with kinda similar shape exist in the area since bronze age). And in Romanian mythology (inherited from Dacians obviously) there exist some werewolves who eat the Sun and the Moon (and so produce the eclypses), like those fantastic wolves from Germanic Ragnarok.

So, my opinion is that Jordanes made up the Scandza story, or misinterpreted it. It was first a Traco-Dacian migration up north (as in Normand Chronicle). You will find mentioned by Ptolemy in southern Scandinavia such tribes as Gautae and Dauciones. You will find in east tribes as Masagetae or Tisagetae and Dahae. And you will find right between them the Daci (Dacians) and Getae (Geti). All this are variations of the same names
And you have an archeologicaly prouved migration from the later Dacia area, around 1300-1000 BC, in all directions.

Even the story of Jordanes, with "Goths" (meaning Getae) fighting at Troy and with some Egyptian Pharaon can be real, if we look at that Thraco-Getae expansion on that times, that most then probably produced the so called "sea people" invasion in Egypt, and destroyied along the way the Mycenian civilization and the Hittite empire.
I assume that Jordanes did had acces to some sources lost by now, and who talked about that.

Goths was a Thraco-Dacian (Getae) peoples, residing outside the borders of Decebalus kingdom (much smaller then Burebista one), but previously integrated in Burebista Dacian proto-empire. In time they mixed with some Germanics and Sarmatians, and together with other Dacian tribes or union of tribes (similar with Germanic tribal unions as Franks or Alamani), like "free" or "great" Dacians, Costoboci or Carpi, started to move toward Roman borders, after the fall of Dacian kingdom of Decebalus.
Especially after some Dacian elite from that kingdom moved in their areas after Trajan wars. It is clear an encrease of agressivity and military power of all "Barbarian" peoples north of Roman borders, after the fall of Decebalus and many of the Dacian elite was forced to leave the former kingdom

[Robert Vermaat]

I think this topic has already been discussed to death on this forum.
Also 'Thor' (real name please), what's the use discussing this if you are giving us nothing more than a 'warning spoiler' sign, which is nice when a movie is discussed, but out of place here?

[Frostwulf]

I know you already know my opinion on this. I think Goths was a Getae/Dacian people, on which was added in time Germanic, Sarmatian and then even Roman elements.

Which you have yet to provide any real proof, let alone professional opinion. I would be very interested to see such information.

Thraco-Dacians has spread anyway up north since the end of Bronze Age, and not just North, but in all cardinal points. Before the migration of Celts, Greeks, Iranics or even Romans and then Germanics, it was a Thracian migration, started from lower Danube area, sometimes around the 1300 -1000 BC.

We have so in Egeea Sea island names as Samos, SamoThrace and Karpatos (Samus is the ancient name of a Dacian river from Transylvania, called Somes today, and the relation between Carpathians and Karpatos is obvious, same the name Thrace with Thracians).
Even Sparta is a Thracian name (see Spartacus and other related Thracian names), and i think at the beginning Spartans was just a Thracian elite established there, and who was completely hellenized later.

A second Getian invasion wave toward Germanic teritories had place under Burebista, under advice of High Priest Deceneus, the second in command.
Agrippa gives the Dacia border as going along the Vistula, up to the Ocean (meaning the Baltic Sea), for I century BC - I century AD. This was confirmed in most part by Ptolemy, for II century AD. Both Schutte and Parvan mention Dacian towns/fortresses there, took from Ptolemy map, some east of Vistula (today Poland), some even west of Vistula (even today Germany).

An interesting thing comes from Germanic mythology, and is related with the end of gods and the world in their myths. This end is bring by a giant snake, Jorgmandur (something like that, sorry if i misspelled the name), and 3 wolves. This will kill the gods, and the wolves will eat as well the Sun and the Moon.

However, the Dacian battle flag, called "draco" by Romans, is made up by a serpent like body, having a wolf head (bracelets with kinda similar shape exist in the area since bronze age). And in Romanian mythology (inherited from Dacians obviously) there exist some werewolves who eat the Sun and the Moon (and so produce the eclypses), like those fantastic wolves from Germanic Ragnarok.

I'm sure you have this backwards, but this is for another thread.

So, my opinion is that Jordanes made up the Scandza story, or misinterpreted it. It was first a Traco-Dacian migration up north (as in Normand Chronicle). You will find mentioned by Ptolemy in southern Scandinavia such tribes as Gautae and Dauciones. You will find in east tribes as Masagetae or Tisagetae and Dahae. And you will find right between them the Daci (Dacians) and Getae (Geti). All this are variations of the same names
And you have an archeologicaly prouved migration from the later Dacia area, around 1300-1000 BC, in all directions.

This is much your misunderstanding of written materials(including geographical) based solely on your opinion.

I think this topic has already been discussed to death on this forum.
Also 'Thor' (real name please), what's the use discussing this if you are giving us nothing more than a 'warning spoiler' sign, which is nice when a movie is discussed, but out of place here?

Perhaps, but generally people don't appreciate "necro" postings, nor did I see anything that pertained towards the Origins in the last year of threads. I saw nothing on Przeworsk, a little reference to Heather which was not expounded on, also the same of the Scandinavian theory. I figured to try to get a comprehensive discussion as I do not have information on certain aspects of the theories of the origins of the Goths. I will remove the spoiler signs if you wish, but I like the use of them simply for ease of reading. The spoiler compartmentalizes each theory without having to scan through the entire post.