Talk:Scandza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

An anonymous user added this:

It should be noted that it is clear that Jordanes hadn't been to the island himself, but described it on basis of legends and famous geographers' imperfect knowledge about the north of Europe, from days when it is considered that it was a common belief that the earth was round and flat.

In what way is it clear that it was based on legends? Unlike many later authors such as Adam of Bremen there are no supernatural creatures such as people with dog heads. What strange information Jordanes provided was correct (as far as it is possible to confirm it) and most of the tribes he mentioned can be identified. I find it clear that it was based on accounts of travellers such as Rodwulf, instead. Moreover, in what way is it relevant that contemporary people believed that the earth was flat??? I will remove this highly POV criticism.--Wiglaf 15:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Critics on Jordanes and discussion of his reliability and sources can be read here for instance:

• The Getica of Jordanes - Books I-III Critical Analysis Review by Eric Anctil (#9730315) a student thesis for Professor: A.N. Sherwood with bibliography

It prooves me right about that.

When it comes to the theory of the shape of the earth, see flat earth; I thought about Mela when I wrote it, because there are nothing that says either that he belived in the flat earth theory, nor a spherical.

In DE SITU ORBIS (Grovonius' edition of 1683, as revised with important additions by his son in 1748), it is called Codanonia, but in DE CHOROGRAPHIA (internetedition) Scadinavia.

Here is another interpretation of the mentioned people and their lands: De Origine Actibusque Gothorum I:III with "classicized" grammar, normalized spelling and some emendations by Þeedrich Yeat.

I don´t think that the article is objective. To be objective it has to present all major different aspects, not present highely critizised interpretations without comments but as facts. The major theory among historicans today, is that you have to be very careful about Jordanes' information, although he is quite accurate and right about some things./213.101

...sort of a 6th century Wikipedian... --Wetman 07:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me first state that I mostly agree with Antil's theory about the Goths. Moreover, Anctil's criticism is not as negative as yours. However, the major problem with Anctil is that he has an agenda behind flogging Jordanes. Anctil maintains that you should not take Jordanes writings at face value, and Anctil's objective is that then you might be more ready to believe Anctil's own theories about the origins of the Goths. There are many scholars who think differently, and consequently, I do not see how Anctil's argumentation could prove your point of view. You wrote The major theory among historicans today, is that you have to be very careful about Jordanes' information, although he is quite accurate and right about some things. That goes for most ancient sources. Why don't you add a last paragraph called "criticism" instead?--Wiglaf 09:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My point of view is that there are several ideas about the origins of the goths, the land where they came from, and related tribes. Beside that all ancient sources are fruits of their times, and the ideas, methods, and purposes that comes with any writer has to be integrated, discussed and clearified in the intepretation. Further that the reliability of Jordanes is questioned by professionals, and that that has to be presented in every part of the article if claiming objetivity. To point out certain people of Sweden as "these mentioned in Getica" like that is a little speculative; interesting enough to be kept in the article, but even so it should be considered more as a suggested reading upon Jordanes. That my personal opinion in fact is that you are quite right about most of it, is not relevant.

I don't feel ready to write that critics though; the reason why I interferred was to point at the incertency, which I still think has to be added to the article ("That goes for most ancient sources"). If you read the abbr. swedish translation of this article, I think you will understand what I mean./213.101

Well certainty is a rare animal in research. I'd prefer to start the article on a positive note, and then let the identifications speak for themselves and most of them are not questioned, AFAIK. I will give it a thought, though.--Wiglaf 11:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm so sorry :-) that I can't find the sources for the, as far as I know general belief that Jordanes never had been to Scandinavia himself. The presumption is based upon his dependance of sources like Cassiodorus, Pliny etc, and traditions among historicans./213.101

Well, I don't think he ever was to the island (a peninsula according to his description) himself either :-). But, I do wonder which other island you suggest would correspond to Scandza.--Wiglaf 12:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you get me wrong: I do have read Jordanes in english and compared it with latin editions but my latin is very poor. My point is that some says (= secondary sources), and it seems that we both find it obvious that so it is, that the knowledge about Scandinavia was so limited; and therefore, as my stand, the descriptions should not be taken that hard. There could be misinterpretations and unpurposed desinformation by them that isn't that clear to us. One should be careful when reading Jordanes, in my opinion./213.101

I thought the intro made this clear:It contains several accurate descriptions of Scandinavia, but is also jumbled and composed of information from several sources.--Wiglaf 13:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It might be clear to you, but consider that also teenagers for instance read this, and because of that it is very important to explain, that there aren't an unquostioned "N1=N2" but instead possibilities, probabilities and suggestions. Further I would like that the article would present the context, both the historical one, the idea historical, and Jordanes'. /213.101

Do that in a subsection called "criticism", please. Moreover, the context is easily accessible for anyone, including teenagers, by clicking on Jordanes and Getica.--Wiglaf 17:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What do critics mean?

What do critics, what is it that you critisize. im swedish so my english isnt world class. do you mean that the Goths didnt come from Scandzia or do you mean that Scandzia isnt the same as Scandinavia? if its later then i must say that you are wrong because theres no region in europe that is even close to jordanes descripton except Scandinavia?