[gothic-l] Re: Cultic leauges

[dirk at SMRA.CO.UK]

> A cultic league for example must not, or rather should not, be 
connected
> with overruling political power over the peoples being part of the
> league. There are a number of politically independent
> peoples/tribes/gentes who share the same cultic system. 


Walter Pohl (Die Germanen) summarises the current state of research on 
those 'cultic leagues', i.e. the 'old and true names' of Tacitus at 
some length. One of the findings is that the significance of these 
leagues was likely overrated by historians in the past. Overall, there 
 seems to be very little agreement and understanding of what this 
concept was and how it would translate into our terminology. 

I think it was Lund who emphasised the importance of the Marcomanni 
for the Suevi. On the one hand the Suevian Langobards were located at 
a considerable geographical distance from the Suevian Marcomanni and 
Quadi. On the other hand, the Elbe river may have been a unifying 
link. Langobards did participate significantly in the Marcomannic wars 
 in the 2nd century AD and archaeologists state that both Langobards 
and Marcomanni are closely linked through a common Elbe-Germanic 
material culture.





A soon as 
one
> people takes command of the other the leauge is beginning to break 
down
> to finally become  a wealth,realm, state or what you prefer. My 
thesis
> says we originally before c:a 500 BC in Northern Europe and 
Scandinavia
> had a number of tribes with fertility cult where the sun and the 
moon
> were the main powers ruling the vegetational year. 


I suppose Sun and Moon were revereed as gods in many cultures at this 
time, perhaps in all of Europe and beyond....



The king in
> respective tribe/people was the reborn sungod  Ingr/Úllr. His title 
was
> the sun-king which in Old Nordic is Svíakonungr and the tribes 
making up
> this cultic leauge  was by outsiders called Suiþioþ, the sun people.



Where do you derive these names from? What is the evidence for you 
assertation that outsiders called this league by the name Suithioth?



> They all, I must underline, were politically independent with own 
sacral
> kings ruling but they all had the same interest to keep the common
> motivation for power - they were all the sun god reborn guaranteeing
> fertility and crop.



There is a recent study of germanic 'Fuerstengraeber', i.e. princely 
graves by Fehr. The authors uses the temporal and geographic spread of 
 those graves to determine the development of social sturctures in the 
early 'Germanic' world. He finds that the earliest princely graves 
occur in Bohemia/Moravia in the 1st cent. AD and may be linked to the 
Marcomanni. From there the distribution of princely graves progressess 
northwards, with the so called Luebsow-graves in Thuringia, 
Brandenburg and Lower Saxony forming the biggest group. The first 
princely grave in Scandinavia appears in the 2nd/3rd century in 
Norway, but the original excavators stated that its content is so 
completely continental that there is a strong possibility that this 
prince came from the continent, most likely Jutland. In addition, the 
fact that the word reiks was apparently borrowed from Celtic 
underlines that social development spread from south to north. 





> When the conditions for agriculture grew worse and climate colder 
the
> old chiefdoms were split up by new colonisation of small family 
farms
> having their own fields and more depending on cattle living close to 
the
> farm  and in stable during winter. This seriously diminished the
> influence of the former chiefs and they had to seek new motivation 
for
> power. Now Gaut  seems to be more actual as a probably both 
fertility
> and schamanistic creator god. The new chiefs claimed genetical 
heritage
> directly from Gaut and also saw him  as origin of the people. Like 
later
> Óðinn the warriors were initiated to the god and in battle  and 
during
> initiation the chief/king was in fact the god. This does not affect 
the
> common people but just the warriors and cultic performers. 



What is the timeframe for this? You are presupposing a social layering 
in commoners, nobles and kings, but the research on 'Fuerstengraeber' 
suggests that such a structure came about rather late in Scandinavia.




It was 
part
> of the service by the chief to arrange cultic secret men's leauges 
to
> frighten demons from the field. In other ways the commoners 
continued to
> worship the old fertility gods  but later Ingr changed name to Frejr 
and
> Ingun to Freja with the coming continental cult of óðinn which 
merged
> with the old cult of Gaut - also for warriors and chiefs only. 




What is the basis for the assertation that Ingr became Frejr and Ingun 
became Freja? And why is the Odin cult continental in origin?





These 
new
> folks can be regarded as a new cultic leauge breaking loose from the 
old
> and not politically united. They were named after their creator god 
but,
> as I said, the commoners cultic habits did not change. A lot of 
royal
> houses claim heritage after Gaut/Geat/Gausus et c. They all share 
one
> thing - they provably originated in the Scandinavian and North 
German
> area or claim haing done so. Accordingly Gaut is tied to Scandinavia
> with surroundings and his old name still lives stromng in Sweden 
with
> Westwern Gautland and Eastern Gautland and the Island of Gotland, 
former
> Gutland. 
> 
> The old league that started to fall together is indicated by Tacitus 
> pointing out the Semnones as organiser of the Suebian league. This 
is
> but a rest of the old leauge and in fact it is only an almost 
succesfull
> try to create a state ruled by the Semnones. 


Actually, Pohl argues -citing Lund-  that the earlier interpretation 
which wanted to asign a special role to the Semnones were a misreading 
of Tacitus. The famous 'Semnonenhain' may only have been a cultic 
place of the Semnones themselves.








The Nerthus tribes are 
also
> remnants of this leauge. 


Kuhn and Kossack (Voelker zwischen Germanen und Kelten) say that the 
Nerthus tribes of Jutland were not Suevi if I remember correctly, but 
I cannot see how this is provalbe.






Suebes, accordingly, also are the sun 
people.



Interestingly, Caesar reported that the Usipii and Tencteri, who were 
not Suevi reported that the Suevi were the most glorious and powerful 
of all people east of the Rhine and '...that not even the importal 
gods are equal to the Suevi...'. (whatever that meant).



> 
> The common cultic tie for the Goths/Gauts/Gutones/Gutar/Ýtas(Jutes) 
is
> accordingly the uniform motivation of power by their rulers. This 
cult,
> as I have shown in my thesis, is also indirectly performed in the 
cult
> of Ingr/Frejr, the popular cult. Hence also this cult is important 
for
> power control. That's why Athanaric was so rude in  hunting 
Christian
> Goths but not Roman Christians. The cult was the glue keeping up the
> Gothic ethnicity and hence the willingness to accept the old sacral
> king, whose late sucessor was Athanaric who performed the same 
functions
> to keep the people united and to head denfence  when attacked. Later 
> the old cult was replaced by Arianism securing that the Roman 
influences
> on the Goths was minor and so the reiks, kindins was no more, could
> continue to rule by the old premises.
> 
> The cult and  claimed heritage of Gaut originates in Scandinavia but 
we
> have no massive emigration. 




Yes, that is also Wolframs view and I find that (IMHO) very reasonalbe 
myself, especially as it resolves the archaelogical problems.



I would say regarding the archaeologucal
> evidence I have found there ought to have been three separate
> emigrations at least and all the time small groups. In the first 
round
> people of Gotland and Östergötland/Småland should be involved  
creating
> trade posts in the amber trade and also known by Pytheas. 


As Andreas Schwarcz explained recently on the list, Pytheas never 
actually mentioned the Goths or Gothones. 

About the status of the latest archaeological research on the Goth in 
northern Poland, Tadeusz Makiewicz wrote:

"Recent archaeological research and lengthy debate on this subject 
have, however, established that the Wielbark Culture did not simply 
come into being as a result of the arrival of tribes of Scandinavian 
Goths in Pomerania. Instead, it evolved from the development of the 
local Oksywie Culture, possibly having been subject to outside 
influences from Scvandinavia. This is evidenced primarily by the fact 
that in its initial phase, the Wielbark Culture had exactly the same 
territorial extent as the  Oksywie Culture, many cemeteries having 
been kept in continued use by these two societies. Wielbark 
communities comprised mostly members of tribes already settled in this 
area with the addition of Scandinavian migrants, who maybe arrived
here in small groups." 




This about
> 350-300 BC. Also the language  should come from that period. The 
second
> group, both Swedes,Jutes and Norwegians - The Kattegat group - is 
due
> about the beginning of our era and have a burial tradition like what 
you
> find in West Sweden. The third part is the multiochtonous forming of 
the
> Gepidic tribe around the Sambian peninsula with people from all over
> Scandinavia and the former Wielbark culture. 


There are no Wielbark or Masovia culture graves on the Sambian 
peninsula (Samland). Most archaeologists argue that the Gepids formed 
in the Vistula delta entirely out of the remnants of the Wielbark 
people without any migrantions. 

http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/gazociag/title5.htm




This   reshapes the
> Wielbark culture to a cultic league of different tribes with 
different
> biological ethnicity. Heather specially remarks that the whole 
culture
> reminds of a cultic league.
> 
> As i see it also the Vandals and the Burgundians, possibly also the
> Langobards, have broken from the same Suiþioþ leauge and  might have
> been part of the Gautic tribes but not adapted the name of the God 
to
> the tribe. 




This list must also include the Saxons, who believed that Hatha-Gaut 
was their ancestral god and the Thuringians who had a founder god 
calld Gaus, but who at the same time were Suevic Hermunduri unlike the 
Saxons. But that also the Langobards were Suevi (Very confusing).



cheers
Dirk


You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/