Talk:Gothiscandza

Scandza

Does Scandza actually occur as simplex in Jordanes (as claimed on Scandza)? This would speak against the reading gutisk-andja. We should make clear how much depends on the competing analyses of gutisk-andja and guti-skandja (haplological for gutisk-skandja?) dab (ᛏ) 09:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sure. You can have a go at the article. I am writing an article at the moment, and then I have to go teaching.--Wiglaf 09:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't remember having seen anything but Scandza and Gothiscandza in Getica. The interpretation Gothi-Scandza seems plausible, but I hesitate about the meaning of it. Could it be the "Gothic Scandinavia"?--Wiglaf 22:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"gothi-" seems rather strange. It would have to be "gothisk-". Jordanes, according to Mierow's translation [1] (is the original text online?) does have the simplex, Scandza, right in the introduction:

"The same mighty sea has also in its arctic region, that is in the north, a great island named Scandza, from which my tale (by God's grace) shall take its beginning."

Now, Gothiscandza appears right next to Scandza:

" Now from this island of Scandza, as from a hive of races or a womb of nations, the Goths are said to have come forth long ago under their king, Berig by name. As soon as they disembarked from their ships and set foot on the land, they straightway gave their name to the place. And even to-day it is said to be called Gothiscandza."

and the implication would be that the names are related. This may be Jordanes' misunderstanding, though. How are we going to reconcile Pliny's Scandia and Jordanes Scandza? It seems quite possible that Scandinavia was simply Scandia, and the new home of the Goths was Gutisk-andza. Jordanes (or his sources) would have misunderstood this as Guti-skandza and believed that Scandza=Scandia. This is just my own speculation at this point, but I am sure this must be discussed in literature somewhere, I'll try to find a reference. The alternative would be that it was, indeed "gutisk-skandja" which was simplified (haplology, even the barbarians weren't fond of saying "-sk-sk-" all the time) to "gutiskandja" and rendered as "gothiscandza" in Latin. dab (ᛏ) 17:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there must be some literature on this. Here are some links to Latin versions of the text IORDANIS DE ORIGINE ACTIBUSQUE GETARUM and IntraText. My objection to the interpretation Gothisk-skandza/ia is semantic. If they migrated from Scandia, there would be a strong metonymic relationship between Goths and Scandza, as between Englishmen and Britain. Now, naming the new settlement Gothic Scandza would be to lift out that metonymy, but for a new location, when the old location would still be very much alive as a concept. Imagine that someone called New England English Britain, then it would seem rather strange. This is due to the metonymic relationship between English and Britain which makes the application to a new location seem unlikely. Then again, the tradition of a Scandinavian origin may be inspired by the similarity between Scandia and Gothiscanza.--Wiglaf 20:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Madison Grant's map

Gothic settlements, according to Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race (1916)

This is the perfect illustration for the article Gothiscandza. The Goths from Scandinavia crossing the Baltic around 1900 BC to the Vistula Basin. /Pieter Kuiper 22:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: Berig removed part of Pieter Kuiper's post here. As per talk page guidelines, I restored the post, adding "thumb" to reduce the displayed image size. — Athaenara ✉ 20:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I restored the Third opinion request. To user Berig Briangotts: in order to aid editor consensus, and rather than relying upon edit summaries alone, please comment here on your reasons for removing the map from the article. — Athaenara ✉ 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Further confusion: It was Briangotts (talk · contribs) who removed the image from the article, while it was Berig (talk · contribs) who removed it from this talk page. I'm assuming neither that they're the same editor nor that they are two editors; I simply don't know. — Athaenara ✉ 21:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Before you even raise the possibility that Berig and I are sockpuppets of one another, a cursory review of each of our edit histories might be in order. It's an extremely serious allegation to even point out the possibility of, albeit obliquely. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion - Rejected

There is no dispute here...merely a contention. This or these individual(s) acts through subterfuge and fails to properly defend his position. Restore the map and request admin help in blocking/warning this or these individual(s). :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I followed up on DRosenbach's view and restored the map to the article. I don't know what the best placement would be, but I think not at the top of the article. — Athaenara ✉ 04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on this map at Talk:Berig, and my comments hold true for this article as well. In short, it is a map created by a non-historian eugenicist who based it on outdated notions of race (i.e., to prove that the "Nordic race" was superior to the "alpine" and "Mediterranean" races. It was not based on serious historical research or archeoglogy. It is very relevant in the article about Madison Grant, as it illustrates his ideas. Its placement in a history article, to illustrate that history is entirely improper. I note further that here Pieter acknowledges that the Grant map is pseudoscience. Don't see any good faith dispute here. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason for Briangotts censoring this map is that Madison Grant is in general disrespect now. That is not relevant. What counts is that this is a detailed, high-resolution map in nice colors, showing Goths settling in the Vistula Basin. If Briangotts prefers an illustration of similar relevance and quality from some old historical atlas, that would be fine with me. But it does not seem that Briangotts is prepared to make that effort of trying to find a suitable replacement. He is just erasing. /Pieter Kuiper 14:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The map is not a reliable source. Berig's map is referenced to a number of reliable historical sources and its placement is therefore proper. Being "in nice colors" is not a qualification for an image appearing or being used for a particular purpose. While I would like to find a "detailed, high-resolution map in nice colors" as PK suggests, it is certainly not my responsibility to do so. It is his responsibility to demonstrate why the map is appropriate here, and he has failed to do so in any substantive manner.

I have tried to assume good faith on PK's part as he clearly has not reviewed or understood many of WP's policies but it is getting difficult. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Briangotts read WP:IMAGES#Pertinence and encyclopedicity. This map is pertinent, and it is properly sourced. /Pieter Kuiper 14:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you write a section on racist and nazi theories in relation to Gothiscandza, it may have a place in the article.--Berig 16:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. The map is suitable for a particular purpose- that purpose being to illustrate the theories of Madison Grant and others who subscribed to similar, outdated racial theories. It is not suitable to illustrate historical fact. "Properly sourced" means only that the source is given, it does not mean that the source is reliable for the purpose the map is used for. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As a final comment from me, as I've been keeping an eye on this discussion since it was posted on 3o, is that you may need to take this to WP:RFC/HIST for a wider community view if you're unable to come to an agreement. 3o isn't applicable any more as there's more than two editors involved in the discussion already, but RFC may be what you need to form a wider consensus. --Darkwind (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea, Darkwind. However, before it happens I'd like to have a real discussion with Athanarea and DRosenbach about their motivation for a racist pseudo-scientific map in an article on a 6h century legend. IMHO, such a map is highly off-topic and there are many many maps that are more relevant.--Berig 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know if it's entirely clear, but just to remove any confusion: The map was created by a pseudoscientific racist with no training in what we would consider the modern disciplines of history, archeology or anthropology, who believed without evidence in nonexisitent "Nordic", "Alpine", and "Mediterranean" races (which are depicted on this map). He further believed that all of the great acheivements of civilization were the result of the Nordic race's superiority and held non-whites in contempt. This is the background of the map that is being defended here to illustrate historical fact. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the above were NOT true, the map is hopelessly flawed because it purports to illustrate 2000 years of history in one map, mixing together people who lived at vastly different times without proper annotations. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I do, however, believe that the map is appropriate in such articles as Nordic theory (to which I have added it), since it is not used in those articles to illustrate historical fact but rather to illustrate the discredited theories discussed therein. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As one of the Third opinion Wikipedians, I saw that a request had been posted and removed and, upon investigation, found further that an article talk page post by one user, whose edits were being reverted by a second user without discussion, had been altered (again without discussion) by a third user.

WP:3O followed up on that, and now there is discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I can't see how Wikipedia could justify use of that map in the context you want to use it. It was created by a lawyer who believed in eugenics. There's no indication of specialist knowledge on his part, or that his ideas were accepted by mainstream thinkers. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The appearance of the Grant's map, especially the area I cropped, is very similar to other maps. I dug up my DTV-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte (1964). On page 20 (pre-classical times) is a B/W map with "Germanen" in Scandinavia and in Northern Germany. It is almost drawn as a bridgehead in warfare, sharp knife-like arrows protruding into the rest of Europa. On page 108 is a map about migrations in the first millennium. The island Bornholm is labeled Burgunderholm, Goths arrive with an arrow in the Vistula Basin. Some Germanic tribes are labeled with a question mark. Page 110 has "Gauten" in Sweden and "Dänen" in Denmark, but Slavs have pushed back the germanic area almost to the Weser. Did that draftsman have political convictions? Probably. /Pieter Kuiper 19:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, stick to the topic Pieter. We are discussing why you want a racist map by Madison Grant in this article, not your opinion whether it has scattered resemblances to scholarly maps.--Berig 19:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)