Origin of the Goths: Slavic or Germanic?

[Delodephius]

Scandza refers to Scandinavia I believe. There are two regions in Sweden, one called Gotland, and island east of Sweden, and Götaland in the south of Sweden, where cities of Gotene and Gothenburg are located and the people are still called Götar in Swedish. The legendary Beowulf was a Götar. It is I think that Jordanes considered either one of these areas as the original homeland of the Goths. Their arrival into Eastern Europe can be compared to the arrival of the Varangians a few centuries later. They were a ruling elite that lived of trade and taxes.

[makedonin]

Jordanes, Procopious and their contemporaries were having clear agenda when they were writing their history accounts. They were politically motivated and wrote half truths with political notions. As such they should be regarded and examined.

[George S.]

Hey Slovak what's the difference between the goths & the visigoths.

[Delodephius]

Goths was their common name. Then they split into the Visigoths (Western Goths) and the Ostrogoths (Eastern Goths). There were also other Gothic tribes and confederacies, like the Thervingi Goths, Greuthungi Goths, Vagoths or Valagoths. Some identify the Greuthungi as the ancestors of the Ostrogoths and the Thervingi of the Visigoths, but it is unclear.

[TrueMacedonian]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Perhaps a segment of the Goths may have derived from there, but I think the story about 'Scandza' is a fanciful rendition by Jordanes that lacks credibility.

Yes that is what Peter Heather stated in his book 'The Goths'. He wrote that the Goths may have been part of a larger cultural affiliation with a people called the Luggi and the Vandals. Scythian was something every Roman writer called anyone outside of their kingdom, including the Slavs. Sometimes they made differentiations and sometimes they didn't.

[TrueMacedonian]

Tomas, SoM what do you guys think about what Onur posted on page 2 about the monk Hrabar stating that the pre-christian Slavs used Runic writing? Any belief in this?

[Soldier of Macedon]

TM, he talks about strokes and incisions, scratches and sketches, or something to that effect. This doesn't necessarily imply runic letters, nor does Hrabar mention anything about them. He may not even be talking about a collective form of writing or a 'standardised' alphabet at all, as he says that the Slavs "did not have their own letters, but read and communicated by means of tallies and sketches". The statement is ambiguous, but worthy of further attention so the number of possible scenarios can be narrowed down. I haven't really looked into it too much, but will do so.

[Delodephius]

Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian

Tomas, SoM what do you guys think about what Onur posted on page 2 about the monk Hrabar stating that the pre-christian Slavs used Runic writing? Any belief in this?

People say that the lack of evidence for Slavic runes lies in them being written on perishable materials, like wood. But Germanic, Hungarian and Turkic runes were written on stone and metal, why would Slavic ones be an exception? It only shows that Slavs used Latin and Greek for writing, since they were close to these literate peoples. Germans and Hungarians being far away created their own writing, though it was of a much limited use than Latin or Greek.

[Onur]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

TM, he talks about strokes and incisions, scratches and sketches, or something to that effect. This doesn't necessarily imply runic letters, nor does Hrabar mention anything about them.

SOM, "strokes and incisions, scratches and sketches" means they were using runic script. Probably the 9th century writer was ignorant about Runic alphabet, so he tries to relate how they write by saying "incisions, strokes". We also have these same definitions about runic writing of Huns in 2-3rd century AD Chinese documents because Chinese people were ignorant about that too and wrote like "Huns writes on wooden tablets by scratching and incising"

Originally Posted by Slovak/Anomaly/Tomas

People say that the lack of evidence for Slavic runes lies in them being written on perishable materials, like wood. But Germanic, Hungarian and Turkic runes were written on stone and metal, why would Slavic ones be an exception? It only shows that Slavs used Latin and Greek for writing, since they were close to these literate peoples. Germans and Hungarians being far away created their own writing, though it was of a much limited use than Latin or Greek.

Maybe you don't remember but you also claimed that Cyril&Methodious would have been used some proto-Bulgarian Turkic runic letters to create Cyrillic script in May 2009 here;

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...62&postcount=9



Also you are right about the usage of wood for regular writing with runes. Yes, we have Hungarian and 1400 year old Turkic writings today but only the ones which has been written on stones. These are mostly the messages of kings, khans on monument like stones because it should be difficult to write on a giant stone and probably it would take so much time, so this should be a privilege for the important people. Maybe slavic people was always subjects of other societies and no one in their society bothered trying to write on a monument? who knows?. But if you don't know this, there is a cave in current Romania, it`s walls are fully covered with old church slavonic and Turkic writings, written by using Turkic runic script in 9th century. Who knows who were these people, Slavs, Turks or both? because the usage of Turkic runic letters for writing in slavonic language is something very unusual.

Click here; http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=4741



But you are wrong about the proximity of Slavs to the Germanic and Hunnic tribes. All three tribes wandered around the north of Blacksea, between east and west. They were not far away to each other and don't forget that unlike sedentary Latins and Greeks, these nomadic people, especially Huns were able to cover 100s of km on horse, wandering from eastern Europe to Siberia in few weeks. Horsemen squad of Ottoman empire was using same tactics of Huns and if necessary, they were using 4 horse per one man, to be able to use fresh horses all the time and ride 1000+ km with minimum pause and maximum speed.

[TrueMacedonian]

According to Blazhe Koneski "The monk Hrabar, who writes that the Slavs, before becoming Christians, used lines and runes and later the Greek and Latin scripts" and later in his article when describing the development of Cyrillic script and the difficulties it faced "In Hrabar's apologia the central question is not the negation of the Slavonic alphabet, although this theme is present here to an extent. The polemics are concerned above all with the question of the alphabet. The claim by the opponents of Cyril's script that it was possible to write with fewer letters, like the Greeks, indicates that Hrabar wrote at a time when Cyrillic had not yet been accepted as the official script, that is during the period of its emergence when the Greek script was used to write the Slavonic language. If this assumption is correct, then Hrabar's text goves us the most direct reference to the struggle over the official script in Symeon's state. If this is the case, M. Weingart's opinion that Hrabar was no other than Naum gains in credibility.
The Ohrid Literary School, by Blazhe Koneski , Macedonian Review Vol. VIII No.1 1978

If Hrabar is Naum then is it possible that Hrabar's/Naum's comments that the pre-christian tribes used lines and runes gain more credibility?