Talk:Gutasaga

Norse history and culture High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The main body of this entry is very problematic and highly speculativ. To start with, there is no real evidence that the Wielbark culture should be associated with the East Germanic Goths, even though a wide range of scholars still find this identification acceptable. Secondly, archaeological research has shown that the Wielbark culture is not related to Gotland or Sweden. It developed authochtonously at the Vistula, which is also the majority view among scholars today. Further the Wiki article states that this migration would have taken place in the first centruy AD. This is wrong. The Gutones are menioned on the continent in sources relating to the first two decades of the first century. At that time they were already well established subordinates of the Marcomannic kingdom. Thus, any migration should have taken place in the first century BC at the latest. Yet, for such a migration there is no evidence at all in the archaeological sources.

Contrary to the arcticle, the fact that the Dvina river is mentioned in the Gutasage does NOT argue for an association of the North Germanic Gutar with the East Germanic Goths. If anything it argues agains such a link. The East Germanic Goths never lived at or near the Dvina river. The inclusion of the Dvina reflects Gotlands trade orientation towards Pskov and Novgorod in the middle ages and has nothing whatsoever to do with the ancient East Germanic Goths. Overall, it is highly unlikely that the Gutasaga preserves any knowledge going back some 1400 years, meaning that the main body of this article is highly misleading and needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfaltin (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the migration of Goths down to the Roman empire is well documented. It's a controversial question where they come from, and the Gutasaga has been used as an argument that they actually came from Gotland, and that is speculative, but the article doesn't say that, on the other hand. But I agree it needs sources and rewrites in a more consistent way, bow it's clear the author has some underhand motive with the text, but not clear what. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The migration of Goths from the Black Sea and Upper Danube into the Roman Empire is well documented. Beyond this, we have no way of knowing what earlier migrations took place. Here older scholars tended to mix up in a circular argument the much later historical sources (Getica) and archaeology (i.e. the supposed shift of the Wielbark culture to the south). Yet, without the 6th century source we have no way of identifying the Wielbark culture with Goths. These problems have been set out in the most recent books on the Goths (see Michael Kulikowski "Rome's Gothic Wars", 2007. Thus, it is speculative that the Gutones/Butones of the early first centry were the ancestors of the latter Goths. To link the East Germanic Goths to a more than 1000 years younger legend on the remote island of Gotland is practically beyond speculation and can only be described as phantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfaltin (talk • contribs) 08:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, once again: This article is not about whether the Goths orginated from Gotland or not, the topic is the Gutasaga. And in the Gutasaga it does say that people emigrated from Gotland to "Griclanz" (roughly Greece). If it's true or not is not really the point, the point is that the Gutasaga says it is. It's also noted in the article that this claim does fit with what is known about the movement of Goths.

That there are no contemporary historical sources is unfortunate, but expected as the people in Northern Europe didn't have the habit of writing things like that down during these times, and archeological evidence will always be weak when it comes to movements, as it's impossible to see the difference between cultures moving an people moving. Hence, the Gutasaga is not proof, but then again, the article does not claim it is.

Your response does not contradict any of this, so therefore I ask: What is your point? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the main body of the article presents a speculativ interpretation of the meanings and origins of the Gutasaga which is plainly wrong. I give you some examples: The article says "The mention of the Dvina river is in good agreement with the Wielbark Culture." The answer is no it isn't. The Wielbark culture was never nowhere near the Dvina river. This is just plain nonsense. Then the article continues ..." Historically, the Goths followed the Vistula, but ..." Again, the Goths are first mentioned around 235AD at the Black Sea. Whether carriers of the Wielbark culture that may have followed the Vistula ever called themselves Goths is entirely unknown.

The article then says "The emigration would have taken place in the 1st century AD, and loose contact with their homeland would have been maintained for another two centuries ..." Again, this is wrong. If the argument is that the Goths came from Gotland, than the migration to the continent would have to have taken place in the 1st century BC not AD. We have historical records of Gutones living at the Vistula around 18AD (and we have historical evidence showing that there was no migration from Gotland in the 1. centuries BC and AD, see V. Bierbrauer). I think is should be clear now what my point is. Instead of presenting outdated speculation as fact, the article should state something like: "In the older scholarship attemps were made to link the Gutasaga with the migration of the East Germanic Goths. However, such an interpretation encounters unsurmountable difficulties; not least the fact that for this orally preserved memory would have to be transmitted over a time span of well over 1000 years...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfaltin (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If the argument is that the Goths came from Gotland," The article makes no such claim. If there are things in the article that are blatantly factually incorrect then you should probably remove those statements. For statements that you find unfounded, you can add a citation request. Your quote about "unsurmountable difficulties" also needs references if you want to add that.

On Wikipedia you don't whine, you improve. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 'whining' I am trying to improve a really poor article by engaging the owner/editor in a constructive discourse. If I had just changed the article, my experience shows, that the owner/editor would just change it back calling for a discussion. Also, if what I have contributed to this article is 'whining' then I think this whole Wikipedia stuff should be ditched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.254.25 (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. There is no owner/editor, that's not how Wikipedia works. YOU improve it. I don't know why you didn't get a Welcome page when you registered, but I've created one for you now, you'll see it next time you log in as (Dfaltin). Read up on how Wikipeida works, and then start fixing! Welcome to Wikipedia! --OpenFuture (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without having reliable sources at hand myself, I can see that the article is still speculative; seems more or less written by a fan of the saga with scant respect for complicating reality. Yes, an article like this should summarize the contents of the topic. But it should also discuss it critically, otherwise it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Another case in point is the usual confusion of "gutnish" and "gothic", when in fact the two languages are quite distinct and cannot have developed out of one another. This all requires attention from an expert with access to scholarly sources. 83.248.231.116 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gutasaga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306132839/http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=10425 to http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=10425

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]